Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavior: the projectName resolution logic that prefers a VSCode workspace config file over the API key's default project. This is valuable context an agent would not otherwise know. It stops short of describing the success return value or side effects, but for a create tool the mutation behavior is largely implied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds the non-obvious projectName behavior. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what it records, the epic linking option, and the projectName resolution rule. The main gap is that it doesn't state what the tool returns on success or how errors surface, but for a create operation this is a minor omission given the schema already documents two parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (title and rationale are documented; epicId and projectName are not). The description compensates by clarifying that `epicId` links the decision to an epic and explaining the `projectName` preference logic, which goes beyond the bare schema. This adds real meaning to the two undocumented parameters, though epicId's value format is not specified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Record a decision in the project's decision log'), which clearly states what the tool does. The mention of optionally linking to an epic via `epicId` further distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools like create_task or create_epic. An agent can immediately tell this is for logging decisions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The tool's purpose implies when to use it (record a decision), but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings like create_open_question or list_decisions. The projectName preference logic is a parameter-level guideline, not tool-selection guidance. The context for how projectName is resolved is useful, but exclusions or alternatives are not mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.