Record a human decision

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond by detailing what happens on approval: re-reads repository, re-verifies, compares candidate hashes, and publishes only outputs confirmed by an external system. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence provides necessary context. It front-loads the purpose and then adds behavioral details. Minimal redundancy; could be slightly trimmed but overall effective.

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 the tool's complexity (human decision recording, multiple required parameters, no output schema), the description is thorough. It explains the full workflow, constraints, and the role of each parameter, leaving no gaps for an AI agent to misunderstand the tool's operation.

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 baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema descriptions: it explains that 'human_approved' must be true and only set by a human, and that 'approver' is the identity recorded in the ledger. This adds value over the basic parameter names and schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool records an approval or rejection for a run that passed verification, using the verb 'record' and the resource 'decision'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like praxis_prepare_remediation and praxis_get_run by emphasizing it is a human decision action, not an automated operation.

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 clearly says 'you must not call this on your own judgement' and 'only call it when a person has seen the diff and the verification result and told you their decision'. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it relative to other tools, though the sibling list helps infer that.

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