record_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating a 'searchable audit trail,' implying persistence, but it does not describe side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or the return value. The output schema is present but not shown, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 concise, with a front-loaded trigger and a short argument list. It avoids verbosity, though the 'Args' section largely restates schema properties.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an inferred output schema, the description provides adequate context for basic use but lacks details on return values, format expectations, or examples. It is minimally sufficient but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., rationale is 'WHY'), which adds basic meaning beyond the parameter names. However, it does not give examples, formats, or constraints, so the compensation is minimal.

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 records architectural decisions with full rationale, and specifies it should be used for 'consequential architectural or technical choices.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like record_hypothesis or record_mistake.

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 states the trigger: 'Call this EVERY TIME you make a consequential architectural or technical choice.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives.

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