record_decision

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it does not say whether entries are append-only, whether duplicate calls overwrite, what permissions are needed, or how the decision is stored. It is consistent with the annotations, so not a contradiction, but it contributes nothing beyond them.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. Key qualifiers ('high-value architectural or implementation') are front-loaded and help scope the tool.

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 six-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and sibling tools that overlap in purpose, this is too thin. It does not explain parameters, selection criteria, or how it differs from related tools; the existing output schema only removes the need to document return values.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, required fields like run_id and node_id are not given meaning, and the description does not compensate for the missing 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 identifies a specific action ('record') and resource ('decision'), and qualifies the kind as 'high-value architectural or implementation.' It does not explicitly compare with record_failure_mode or write_project_memory, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as write_project_memory or record_failure_mode. The phrase 'high-value' implies a selection criterion, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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