log_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails to: it does not say whether records are permanent, whether duplicates are merged, whether teammates are notified, or what identity requirements the author field implies. 'Shared memory' does disclose that the entry is team-visible, which is the only real behavioral signal.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. The rationale emphasis is delivered compactly.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is far short of what an agent needs. It omits parameter mapping, required-field implications, and any behavioral consequences of writing to shared memory.

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% across 8 parameters (title, author, body, repo, repoId, projectId, tags, relatedFiles), and the description mentions none of them. The emphasis on 'WHY' loosely implies what belongs in body, but title/author being required and the id-vs-name distinction between repo and repoId are left completely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Record an architecture decision') and adds the distinguishing nuance that the rationale ('WHY') is captured too. It implicitly contrasts with the read-side sibling get_decisions, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite get_decisions existing in the sibling set. 'For the team's shared memory' hints at intent but leaves the triggering condition for logging a decision entirely to inference.

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