record_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that decisions appear in briefings and that only the written rationale is visible to future agents, but does not discuss auth requirements, destructiveness, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 zero waste: the first defines purpose, the second adds critical usage context for the rationale parameter. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 4 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, and when agent_id is used, but the core use case is covered adequately.

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 specifically explains the 'rationale' parameter ('Record the WHY') and its permanence, but does not clarify project_id, decision, or agent_id beyond what the schema names imply.

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 verb 'Log' and resource 'architectural/engineering decision', and the phrase 'so the swarm stops re-litigating it' distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like open_discussion or resolve_discussion.

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 explains when to use (to stop re-litigation) and emphasizes recording the WHY in rationale. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools for similar actions.

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