Remember a decision

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

With no annotations, the description discloses two key behaviors: it is append-only and shared with the team. This gives agents a good understanding of side effects. Could be improved by noting it is persistent and irreversible, but the info provided is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load purpose and include behavioral constraints. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. It could mention that tags are optional (implied by schema) or that content is natural language, but overall it's adequate for the agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema definitions. No elaboration on approved values, formatting, or relationships between params.

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?

Description clearly states the tool records architectural decisions, bug fixes, or team knowledge. It uses specific verb 'record' and resource 'decision', and distinguishes from siblings like broadcast or recall by specifying it's for persistent, append-only knowledge sharing.

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 clear context on when to use (recording decisions/knowledge) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use. However, the examples and 'append-only shared' imply it's for permanent recording, not transient communication.

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