record_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains creation of a node, return of a status string, and effects of special parameters (bump timestamp, expire edges). Missing details on side effects of mutation (e.g., irreversible changes) or error conditions.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, when to use, and special usage. No redundancy or filler. Each 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?

Covers core behavior and Phase 9 modes adequately. Lacks details on return value semantics or potential errors, but given the parameter count (8) and no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by elaborating on corroborates, supersedes, and force parameters with their behavioral implications (e.g., 'no new node created', 'old node's edges expired'). For other parameters, the schema already provides 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 clearly states 'Creates a Decision node in the graph' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like record_problem by specifying 'when making or discovering architectural choices'.

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 gives clear context for when to call ('making or discovering architectural choices') and provides specific usage for Phase 9 (corroborates, supersedes, force). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though siblings imply distinction.

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