store_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: SQLite persistence, write-lock arbitration to prevent concurrent conflicts, and where the data is and is not visible (query_history/search_history vs. get_state). It does not cover failure behavior under lock contention, return value, or duplicate handling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action and concurrency behavior front-loaded, followed by the most important scoping fact (not part of get_state). The middle sentence largely repeats the schema's required parameters, which is the only minor waste.

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 two-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers storage medium, concurrency safety, retrieval path, and state-visibility exclusion. It omits what the call returns and how lock contention surfaces to the caller, so it is nearly but not fully complete.

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%, with both parameters documented and an example context label already in the schema. The description's 'short context label and the decision text' restates what the schema provides without adding format, length, or validation guidance, so baseline 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 ('Persist a single decision to the SQLite store') and immediately distinguishes this store from sibling surfaces by noting decisions are queryable via query_history and search_history but are not part of get_state. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and where the data lives.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it (recording a decision) and routes the agent to the right retrieval siblings (query_history, search_history) while explicitly excluding get_state. It stops short of naming a direct alternative for writing decisions or stating when not to call it, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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