hebbrix_log_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral effect on hebbrix_confidence and the auto-fill behavior from the last confidence check. It does not mention side effects like reversibility or permissions, but for a logging tool it provides adequate transparency.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a useful shortcut in a separate paragraph. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 relatively simple, but the description omits meaning for two optional parameters and does not mention any use-case exclusions. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, yet the missing parameter semantics and limited guidance on when not to use the tool leave it incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'outcome' with allowed values (success | failure | partial) and hints that 'description' is the choice, but it does not explain 'collection_id' or 'decision_type'. This leaves two of four parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 with a specific verb and resource ('Record a decision') and explains its role in feeding hebbrix_confidence. It distinguishes itself from sibling memory tools by focusing on decision logging.

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 gives clear context on when to use it (right after a hebbrix_confidence check) and describes the shortcut to log just the outcome. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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