record_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the decision persists in project's memory, is available for cross-thread recall, and interacts with the check_decision guard. It also explains the default project behavior. No contradictions or hidden traits.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence states action and effect; second provides parameter guidance and usage context. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 simple recording tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and behavioral persistence. It doesn't mention return values or errors, but these are not critical given the simplicity. The mention of check_decision and cross-thread recall adds valuable context.

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. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'rationale' (WHY) and its future use by check_decision, and clarifying the 'project' default behavior. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 'Record a DECISION' as the verb+resource, and specifies it's for a project with cross-thread recall. It is differentiated from sibling tools like record_gotcha and recall_decisions by focusing on technical decisions.

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 states when to use: 'Use when you settle a technical choice worth remembering.' It also provides guidance on omitting project and passing rationale. While it doesn't list explicit alternatives, the context is clear.

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