workflow_submit_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. 'Persist' implies a write, but there is no mention of permission requirements, whether decisionId acts as an upsert key, whether submissions are immutable, or how the default ACCEPTED status behaves.

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 tightly worded sentence with the key scoping phrase ('for a journey') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

A mutation tool with 7 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema cannot be called confidently from one sentence. Nothing tells the agent the expected lifecycle of a decision record or what a successful submit returns.

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?

Eight parameters with 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. The distinction between decisionId and journeyId, the meaning of the options/chosen pair, and the semantics of the status enum are 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?

States a specific verb ('Persist') and a clearly bounded resource ('architectural or product decision (ADR-style) for a journey'). An agent can grasp what this records, though it never contrasts itself with adjacent tools like workflow_submit_artifact or workflow_report_blocker.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., must the journey exist first), and no exclusions. The agent must infer placement in the workflow entirely from the name.

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