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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the side effects (stamping review time, clearing the pending review reminder), the ownership scoping ('only the caller's own decision is reachable'), and the two-phase confirmation protocol with the exact response fields returned. The destructiveHint=true annotation is consistent with a write that is merely staged first.

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?

Front-loads the action, then parameter semantics, then side effects, then the labeled CONFIRMATION block. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description supplies the response shape (status='confirmation_required', action_id, plan_token), the follow-up tool, and the side effects. An agent has everything needed to invoke it and handle the result correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it names all four parameters and explains each one's meaning, including the verdict enum values ('good/mixed/bad — how the call turned out'). It omits format detail for decision_id (the schema permits integer or string) and any guidance on composing a useful outcome or lessons text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Record the retrospective on one of the caller's past decisions') and pins down the target object ('decision_id'), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like log_decision or delete_decision.

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?

Establishes when to call it (a past decision that has already played out) and explicitly routes the agent onward to confirm_action to complete the write. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives such as log_decision for new decisions, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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