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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: append-only immutability, all content fields required, and that the write is verified before VERIFIED is returned, plus that hedge/telling words are preserved as written and flagged in the answer. That flagging/verification behavior is unobvious and valuable, though the phrasing 'the answer marks the lines' is cryptic.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are dense but purposeful. The middle passage about 'doubt wording and telling words outside quoted words' is hard to parse and reads as more obscure than necessary, costing clarity for its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain that VERIFIED is returned after a verified write, and it specifies the expected shape of each content field. It omits failure modes and how to locate home_path, but the schema covers the latter, leaving only minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already defines all five parameters, albeit tersely ('Why.'). The description adds useful sizing guidance ('one or two sentences per field, about 80 words in all') and the pointer convention for fields detailed elsewhere, which is a modest lift above the schema.

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 (append one entry) and resource (this home's DECISIONS list) with a semantic gloss ('something was chosen, and why') that implicitly separates it from capture_rejection/capture_correction. It never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from the wording alone.

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?

Gives real scoping rules: append-only with no edit or delete, and 'the detail of a sitting lives in its dated note' with a pointer rule for overly detailed fields. However, no sibling tool is named as an alternative, so the choice between capture_decision, capture_rejection, and capture_correction remains implied rather than explicit.

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