never4ga_decide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the record is created as PROPOSED and is not in effect, with acceptance reserved for the maintainer. It stops short of stating permissions, error behavior, or side effects such as number allocation from the folder.

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 short sentences with no filler; the state-of-the-draft constraint is front-loaded immediately after the purpose so an agent knows the outcome before reading anything else.

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 5-parameter draft tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the lifecycle guarantee. Only minor gaps remain (return value shape, what happens if title collides).

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 100%, so every parameter (including the numbering, series, and workspace semantics) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Draft a decision record') and immediately adds the lifecycle state the draft lands in. It is clearly distinguishable from write-ish siblings like never4ga_capture or never4ga_checkpoint, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 firm usage rule: an agent never authors an accepted decision, and only the maintainer promotes one. That is real when/when-not guidance for the drafting workflow, but it does not point to a specific alternative tool for capturing non-decision content.

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