Record decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only adds 'Decisions stay relevant for a long time', which hints at long-term persistence but omits details about overwrites, idempotency, return values, or required session/workspace context. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a write operation.

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 filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then adds a note on long-term relevance. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return behavior, when to use over save_memory, or the meaning of several parameters. This makes it incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate. It explains rationale and rejected alternatives but does not address confidence, importance, agentId, sessionId, or workspacePath semantics. The required content is obvious from the tool name, but other parameters remain unclear, making the description insufficient for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Record' with the resource 'important project decision', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_memory or get_decisions. It also mentions optional components (rationale, rejected alternatives), making the scope unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: record important project decisions with rationale and alternatives. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use or name alternatives like save_memory, but the purpose is distinct enough to imply appropriate usage. A score of 4 reflects the clear context without formal exclusions.

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