Log Decision

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

The annotations provide no behavioral hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a 'decided' status stamps the decision time, linking is verified in-org, and the tool returns the decision. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the primary action and then unpack key details. No redundant words or information.

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 simple create tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main points: required field, status options, linking behavior, and verification. It is missing details on error handling or return format, but these are not critical for agents.

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 description adds value by explaining the side effect of 'decided' status (timestamps) and that link_id is verified in-org, which is not in the schema descriptions.

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 states the verb 'Log' and resource 'decision', and clarifies that the tool creates a decision record. It also distinguishes the decision's status options and linking capability, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_feature or create_objective.

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 implies usage by mentioning required and optional fields, and suggests linking to other entities. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_decision or list_decisions) or provide exclusion criteria.

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