research_record_followup_decision

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

The description conveys that this is a state-recording write action with workflow sequencing constraints. However, it does not disclose whether an existing decision is overwritten, what the response looks like, or what happens if called in the wrong state. Annotations provide no read-only or idempotency protection, so more behavioral detail would have helped.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and allowed values are front-loaded, and the routing caveat is placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter state-recording tool, the description plus schema provides enough to select and invoke it correctly: when it applies, what to pass, and how it relates to the sibling workflow tool. Missing details like overwrite semantics and return values are minor given the tool's low complexity and absence of an output schema.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter-semantics burden. It does add workflow context to the decision parameter by enumerating the valid choices and routing NEXT_EXPERIMENT_PROPOSED elsewhere, but it never defines task_id's referent or explains the practical meaning of DEFERRED versus NO_NEXT_EXPERIMENT. This is only partial compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('record') with a clear resource ('followup decision') and explicitly names the two allowed outcomes. It also differentiates this tool from rva_review_next_experiment, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 states when the tool applies ('after settled result review'), which decisions belong here, and which decision belongs to a sibling tool. The condition that NEXT_EXPERIMENT_PROPOSED must settle before closure/linking gives actionable workflow ordering.

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