sigmodx_log_gl_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses auto-blocking for segregation violations, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether it's a write operation beyond logging. Adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 no output schema, complex parameters (8 properties, nested object), and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, tool effects, or parameter relationships, leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 8 parameters, including required fields like 'inputs' and 'rationale'. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely undocumented.

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 the tool logs a GL entry review decision and lists specific actions (approves, flags, blocks). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'GL entry review' and 'journal entry', which sets it apart from anomaly or invoice decision tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use when an AI agent approves, flags, or blocks a journal entry,' providing clear usage context. It also notes auto-blocking for segregation of duties violations, but does not mention when not to use or compare directly to sibling tools.

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