store_decision

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait: 'write-lock arbitration to prevent concurrent conflicts'. However, it does not explain write semantics such as whether the same context overwrites an existing decision, what errors may occur, or what is returned on success.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the primary action and add relevant details about concurrency and queryability. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains persistence, concurrency handling, and how stored decisions can be retrieved, which gives the agent enough context to select and invoke the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description essentially restates the schema ('short context label' and 'decision text') without adding new semantic details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Persist a single decision to the SQLite store'. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that stored decisions are 'queryable via query_history and surfaced in get_state', which clarifies its unique role.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to persist a single decision, and it instructs the user to 'Provide a short context label and the decision text'. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the mention of query_history and get_state helps differentiate it from related tools.

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