record_decision

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (setting fields based on origin logic) and provides detailed rules. However, it omits important operational details such as idempotency, error states, required permissions, or what the function returns, limiting transparency.

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 somewhat verbose and dense, mixing core purpose with detailed conditional logic. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, but the length and lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) reduce readability. Every sentence earns its place, but brevity could improve.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential decision logic but fails to address the return value, error scenarios, or additional side effects. It is adequate for a focused agent but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'origin' and 'final_class' in detail, adding significant meaning. However, other parameters like 'workdir', 'accepted', 'rationale', and 'confidence' are not described, leaving gaps that the schema (only types) does not fill.

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's purpose: 'Commit the LLM's identity CALL for one entry — the ONLY tool that sets final_class/confidence/origin.' It uses a specific verb ('Commit') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the sole tool for this critical action.

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 implies when to use it (to commit a decision for an entry) and explicitly states it is the only tool for setting these fields, providing context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g., feature must be identified first), which keeps it from a 5.

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