Record what a decision was judged against

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: it only augments an existing decision (no creation), re-declaring the same rule replaces its sentence, and the judgment is timestamped as 'late' in the decision's history. It does not say what happens if the id does not exist, which is the notable 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good. However the 'Call it the moment the judging happens -- someone asks whether a decision holds...' sentence is atmospheric narration that conveys little operational information and could be compressed to 'records the judgment after the fact, so it shows as late in history'. Middle section is bloated relative to the payload.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, sibling routing, and update semantics adequately. The main omission is failure behavior when the referenced decision does not exist, plus no mention of how the declaration surfaces in other views.

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 both `id` and `against` are already documented with concrete formats ('d12', '

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 states a specific action (record, after the fact, the pillars or rules a decision was judged against, each with a sentence) and immediately scopes it to decisions that already exist. An agent can tell this is an additive annotation of existing decisions rather than creation. The 'moment the judging happens' framing adds some color but the operational purpose is clear.

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 routes explicitly: new decisions take their judging context through `vivac_decide`, and `vivac_rules` is named as the source of the pillars/rules to reference. That gives real when-this-vs-that guidance for two siblings. It stops short of enumerating all alternatives, but the key routing decisions are covered.

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