Record Change 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. It discloses the side effect (deterministically regenerating the deliverable), the failure condition (refusal if regeneration is not deterministic), and the output (lists pending change ids). It also explicitly states the action is 'durable' (persistent). These are significant behavioral traits beyond what a schema would show.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides distinct value. It avoids repetition and is efficiently structured, with technical details placed after the primary action.

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?

While the description covers the core decision logic and mentions the output, it omits explanations for required parameters like 'run_dir' and 'source_path'. Since there is an output schema, return values are likely covered, but the missing parameter semantics make the description incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 explains the source of 'change_id' and implies the values for 'decision' (accept/reject), but it does not explain 'run_dir', 'source_path', 'note', or 'decided_on'. These required parameters are left undefined, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 the verb ('Record') and the resource ('the user's accept/reject for one annotated change'), and notes it is 'durable'. The singular 'one annotated change' differentiates it from the plural sibling tool 'record_change_decisions', so an agent can distinguish it.

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 a clear usage context by stating that 'change_id comes from get_change_review', which tells the agent where to obtain a required parameter. It also implicitly differentiates from the plural sibling by emphasizing 'one annotated change', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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