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 burden. It discloses side effects clearly: 'decisions are durable', 'Retarget/correction decisions update the run identity immediately', 'redesign decisions inject a required task on every regeneration', and 'accept decisions downgrade the blocker to a reported accepted risk.' This is detailed and honest about consequences.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then the prerequisite, then the behavioral details, and ends with the result. Each sentence earns its place; there is no redundant fluff.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return details are covered. The description explains the most important aspects (source of IDs, rationale requirement, side effects, and result), but with 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, it fails to explain run_dir, decided_on, and now. These are significant for correct invocation, so the description is not fully complete.

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 clarifies that blocker_id and option_id come from get_blocker_resolutions, and that rationale is required for accept options. However, it does not explain run_dir, decided_on, or now, leaving a gap for agents on how to populate these parameters.

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 clear verb ('Record') and resource ('user's decision for one blocker'), and specifies scope ('one blocker'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like record_change_decision by focusing on blocker-specific decisions and mentioning the prerequisite 'Ids must come from get_blocker_resolutions'.

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?

Provides explicit guidelines: 'Ids must come from get_blocker_resolutions' and 'Accept options REQUIRE the user's own free-text rationale and are never a default.' It also explains the different decision types and their effects, which helps the agent understand when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the name itself implies the scope.

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