record_decision

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'durable' and 'superseding' context, hinting at the effect on an existing decision. However, it does not disclose side effects like how the superseded decision's status changes or any permissions needed. The description is consistent with annotations but adds limited behavioral detail.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core function and a key optional behavior.

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 has 8 parameters, a status enum, and an output schema, the description captures the primary purpose but omits details such as how to set status to 'rejected', how linking to issues/projects works, and how supersession is reflected. It is adequate for a simple write operation but leaves gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter roles. It vaguely hints at issue_id/project_ref via 'project or issue decision' and supersedes_id/status via 'superseding', but it does not clarify which parameters are required, how they relate, or the meaning of the status enum. This is insufficient for effective parameter usage.

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 'Append' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'durable project or issue decision', also noting the optional superseding behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_comment or list_decisions, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for recording formal decisions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., add_comment for comments) or provide exclusion criteria. The use case is clear enough for basic selection, but there is no explicit guidance.

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