Record Change Decisions

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 meaningful traits: decisions are applied in order, each regeneration reflects earlier rejections, refused decisions are reported, and the remaining decisions continue. This goes beyond the input schema and helps an agent predict side effects, though it could say more about persistence or validation failure behavior.

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: purpose first, then item shape, then behavioral rules. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or input 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?

For a batch mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this description covers the critical semantics: item structure, ordering, refusal behavior, and per-decision results. The main gaps are the unexplained run_dir and decided_on parameters and the exact result shape, though the presence of an output schema reduces the severity of the latter.

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?

The description adds real meaning for the decisions array item: source_path, change_id, decision with accepted/rejected values, and an optional note. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the required run_dir parameter plus decided_on are not explained at all. The description compensates for the item schema but leaves two top-level parameters underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record several review decisions in one call.' It clearly signals batch semantics and per-decision results, which distinguishes it from the singular sibling record_change_decision without needing to open schemas. The item format with decision enum values adds further precision.

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 phrase 'several review decisions in one call' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when batching multiple decisions. It also communicates that decisions apply in order and that refused decisions are isolated. It does not explicitly name the singular alternative or state when not to use it, but the batch framing is strong enough guidance.

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