engi_decision_create

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the minimal 'create' action. It mentions no side effects, permissions, or behavior of the dry_run parameter. With no annotations provided, the description fails to inform the agent about write semantics or reversibility.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices valuable information. It is not front-loaded with key details; it only states the obvious. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, 6 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what an Engineering Decision Record is, how to structure the fields, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks essential context to use the tool correctly.

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 only 10% (only 'root' has a description). The tool's description does not explain any parameter meanings, including required fields like 'title', 'context', 'options', etc. This leaves the agent without necessary context for proper parameter usage.

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 action (create) and the resource (Engineering Decision Record), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like engi_requirement_create or engi_task_create, which could also involve creation decisions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., engi_requirement_create for requirements, engi_task_create for tasks). The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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