Start a decision

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds real behavior beyond that: it returns a decision_id, normalized weights, empty cells expected to be filled by score_option, and a next step — i.e. it creates an unfilled matrix rather than a finished result. It stops short of stating persistence/auth requirements.

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?

Front-loads what is created, then the when-to-use condition, then the return payload and next step. Two sentences, no filler, though the parenthetical examples are slightly long for the information they carry.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description usefully summarizes them and links the workflow to score_option. The remaining gap is invocation prerequisites (does a decision need to exist first, any permission constraints), which keeps this at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 names, minItems, and the weight-normalization semantics are already documented in the schema. The description restates the three inputs at a high level without adding constraints or formats beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 and resource ('start a structured decision') plus the three inputs it takes (question, options, weighted criteria). It also names the next sibling tool ('the empty cells to fill with score_option'), so an agent can place it against list/delete/export/score_option without opening the schema.

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 a clear positive trigger: 'use this whenever a choice deserves explicit reasoning (a technology, a vendor, a plan, a design)', which covers the intended context well. It does not name an explicit when-not condition or contrast against siblings like analyze or what_if, so it falls short of a 5.

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