Log Decision

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful context: the default status of 'decided' and that a 'decided' status stamps the decision time, plus that link_type + link_id are verified within the organization. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent useful behavioral expectations. It could mention idempotency or error handling, but the disclosed behaviors are valuable.

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 description is two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose, then efficiently covers status behavior, linking, and required fields. Every sentence earns its place and does not repeat schema details.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotation hints, the description does well to cover the required field, status options, linking constraints, and validation. It explains behavior not obvious from the schema (time stamping). It could be slightly more complete by stating what the return value looks like, but 'return it' implies the created decision. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 100%, so the schema already defines each parameter. The description adds extra semantics beyond the schema: the default status value, the timestamp stamping behavior for 'decided', and the requirement that link_type and link_id must be paired and are verified in-org. This enrichment elevates the score above the baseline of 3.

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 'Log a decision and return it,' which clearly specifies the verb (log) and resource (decision). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_decision and list_decisions by emphasizing creation. The mention of statuses and optional linking further clarifies the exact scope.

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 description clearly indicates when to use the tool: to create a decision. It states 'Only title is required' and outlines optional linking to features/releases/objectives, giving the user a sense of the typical invocation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with update_decision or list_decisions, though the context implies it. This warrants a 4 rather than a 5.

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