log_decision

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses that the record is pushed instantly and visible to teammates' agents, which is useful. However, it does not mention persistence, editability, or any side effects (e.g., overwriting, conflicts), leaving some uncertainty for a write operation.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the key details are conveyed efficiently. Every clause adds value, and it is neither overwritten nor under-specified.

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?

The tool is straightforward and the description covers the core context (what to record and its immediate visibility). Although the output schema is present, the description does not mention the return value or any prerequisites. For a logging tool, this is largely sufficient; the minor gaps do not impede correct usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps four of the six parameters: context (situation), decision (what was decided), rationale (why), and files (which files). It does not explain the 'title' or 'tags' parameters, leaving those to the schema alone. Partial compensation is achieved, but a clearer tie-in to all parameters would improve it.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('architecture/tooling decision'), enumerating the key content fields (situation, decision, rationale, affected files). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like save_note or log_solution, which target different content types.

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 when to use the tool: when an architecture/tooling decision is made. It also hints at the audience (teammates' agents) and that it is pushed instantly. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when NOT to use it, though the narrow scope makes misuse unlikely.

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