Record a decision

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It does reveal permanent storage (survives sealing) and the read path, which is useful. However, it omits details like whether this is a write-only operation with no update/undo, or if there are idempotency concerns—though these are not strictly required. The description adds some behavioral color beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the read-back method and the alternative. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy, well within conciseness limits.

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 write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description effectively communicates the core behavior and usage. A minor gap is the absence of any note on permissions or consequences of superseding, but those are not essential for calling 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds reference to 'permanent record' but does not deeply elaborate on parameter usage; baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb 'Promote' with resource 'settled outcome to the permanent record', and clearly distinguishes it from siblings: it is the way to make a decision permanent, as opposed to komnet_send for ongoing discussion. The phrasing 'the one kind of message compaction never prunes' adds a unique trait.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with komnet_send ('for anything still under discussion') and points to the read-back method (komnet_read scope='decisions'). No ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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