Update Decision

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral details: the effect of moving status to 'decided' re-stamps decision time, and linking is verified in-org. No contradiction with annotations. It doesn't cover authorization or rate limits, but annotations already provide safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the core action and partial update behavior. Each sentence is informative without extraneous words. No redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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?

Given the tool complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, 2 enums) and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: how to get the id, the behavior on status change, and linking instructions. It doesn't explain the return value in detail, but 'return it' implies the updated object is returned. The schema and annotations already cover most structural info, so the description fills gaps well.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains how to obtain the id (via list_decisions), the effect of status changes on decision time, and the semantics of link_type+link_id (verified in-org, clear with nulls). For title and rationale, it adds 'null clears it', which for rationale is already in schema but for title it's new. Overall, it adds significant value.

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 clearly states 'Update a decision and return it; omitted fields unchanged.' This specifies the action (update), the resource (decision), and the behavior (partial update). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_decision or list_decisions by describing the update semantics.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for updating decisions, with specific notes on status (re-stamps decision time on 'decided'), re-linking via link_type+link_id (verified in-org), and clearing with nulls. It also advises to resolve the id via list_decisions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough.

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