Record a decision

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by warning that rejected alternatives are 'semantically required even though optional in the schema,' which an agent would not learn from the annotations or schema alone. It still does not say what superseding does to the prior record or what the call returns.

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 opening sentence front-loads the core action well, but the following sentences are dense and shorthand-heavy ('Norms: use vivac_add constraint (root if global), even if called rules'), which costs clarity. Every sentence is relevant, yet the phrasing reads as internal jargon rather than clean instruction.

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?

For a ten-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the most error-prone parameter ('alternative') and the 'against' convention, which is the right prioritization. It is silent on what the tool returns (node ID or confirmation) and on the semantics of 'supersedes' and 'governs', so an agent driving follow-up calls has gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning by upgrading 'alternative' from optional to semantically mandatory and by prescribing the 'against' format ('pillar/rule plus compliance sentence'). It leaves 'governs', 'blocks', and 'supersedes' entirely to the schema.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: 'Record a settled choice ... its reason and every rejected alternative.' It is distinguishable from a general note-taking tool because it demands a reason and rejected options, but it never names the closest siblings (vivac_declare, vivac_note) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

It does route one case explicitly: constraints/norms should go to vivac_add rather than here, and 'against' should be filled per applicable pillar/rule. That is meaningful steering, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over vivac_declare or vivac_note, and the word 'now' hints at timing without explaining it.

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