log_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the file and fields but does not disclose whether the tool appends to the file, overwrites existing content, or what side effects occur (e.g., file creation, permission requirements). For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no irrelevant detail or repetition.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values may be covered), the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a description that omits workspace_path and file behavior. This leaves the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.

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 only lists the parameter names (title, context, decision, consequences) without adding semantic meaning beyond their names. The optional workspace_path parameter is not mentioned in the description, leaving its purpose ambiguous. Overall, the description fails to provide meaningful parameter-level guidance.

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's purpose: to record an Architectural Decision Record (ADR) in a specific file (.context/decisions.md) with the listed fields. It uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on node graph operations.

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 context is clearly implied: use this tool when you need to log an ADR. However, it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, though sibling tools are clearly different. The description gives enough context for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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