Record Blocker Decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses persistence, decision-specific side effects (migration.yaml updates, injected adaptation tasks, downgrade to accepted decision), and the result's content. This level of detail is exceptional for an unannotated tool.

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 dense but highly organized, front-loading the core action and durability before explaining decision-specific behavior. Every clause adds distinct information, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

Despite no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the core behavior, side effects, prerequisites, and result contents. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate consequences, especially given that an output schema already exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for blocker_id and option_id (source from get_blocker_resolutions) and rationale (required for accept, never default). However, it does not explain run_dir, now, or decided_on, though those are more inferable or optional.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Record the user's decision for one blocker'. It also flags durability, which distinguishes this write operation from read-only siblings like get_blocker_resolutions. The purpose is 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 explicitly tells the agent that blocker_id and option_id must come from get_blocker_resolutions, and that accept options require the user's own rationale and are never a default. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the triggering condition ('user's decision for one blocker') is clear.

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