store_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses write-lock arbitration for concurrency and that decisions become queryable via other tools. However, it does not mention idempotency, overwriting behavior, or error conditions.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence conveys the core action and mechanism, the second tells what to provide and the outcome. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it mentions write-lock, queryability via siblings, and required inputs. It could optionally clarify uniqueness or overwrite behavior, but overall adequate.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description paraphrases the schema by telling the user to provide a context label and decision text, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool persists a single decision to SQLite with write-lock arbitration. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that decisions are queryable via query_history and surfaced in get_state, indicating a create operation rather than query or update.

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 implies usage by telling the user to provide a context label and decision text, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_state. It mentions concurrency handling but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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