edit_session_decision

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that only ephemeral decisions are editable and synced ones are immutable. It describes the two actions (update/delete) but lacks details on side effects like confirmations or reversibility. Nonetheless, it provides sufficient behavioral context for an AI agent.

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 concise with only three short paragraphs and bullet points. No unnecessary sentences; each part adds meaning. Structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage details and constraints.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, action semantics, and parameter usage hints. It could mention what the tool returns or any side effects, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it 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%, but the description adds value by explaining that 'forkAuthor' and 'workspaceId' are usually auto-resolved and only needed for override/testing. The 'action' parameter's enum values are contextualized with 'update' and 'delete' descriptions. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Edit or delete a decision in the current session', using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from related siblings like 'record_decision' by emphasizing pre-commit review and immutability of synced 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when reviewing decisions before commit' and describes when to use each action. Provides clear exclusion criteria: once synced, decisions are immutable and should be refined via new decisions with 'supersedes'. This differentiates from siblings effectively.

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