Record human responses to agent proposals, capturing decision traces for corrections, approvals, or rejections to update the temporal knowledge graph.
Record a decision trace: what the agent proposed and how the human responded
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | No | ||
| reasoning | No | ||
| tool_name | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| decision_type | Yes | ||
| agent_proposal | No | ||
| human_correction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what is recorded but not whether the operation is append-only, idempotent, permission-sensitive, or what happens on conflict. No mutation or safety details are given.
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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and object. No filler or redundant wording.
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 7 parameters including nested objects and required fields, the description is far too minimal. It leaves the agent without guidance on required inputs, the decision_type enum, or the structure of nested objects, and there is no output schema to aid expectations.
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 only hints at 'proposed' and 'human responded', which loosely map to agent_proposal and human_correction. It does not explain required parameters like session_id or decision_type, nor the enum values.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: recording a decision trace with the agent's proposal and human's response. The verb 'record' and resource 'decision trace' are specific, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like record_correction or record_event.
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 provided for when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., record_correction, record_event). The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.