add_decision

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Record', implying a write, but does not disclose side effects such as supersedes retiring a prior decision, immutability, or what happens on success. That is thin for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and object leading. There is no filler, and every word contributes to the core message.

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 full input schema and an output schema, the definition is minimally viable for a simple logging tool. It is incomplete because it offers no explicit alternative selection guidance and no behavioral context about the supersedes relationship, but the schema and output schema lower the burden significantly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the rationale aspect of summary but adds no new meaning for location or supersedes beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific action ('Record') and a specific resource ('architectural/product decision') and ties in the rationale requirement. This clearly communicates the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling recording tools such as add_note, log_issue, or record_attempt.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description does not tell the agent to prefer add_decision for decisions and log_issue for issues, or how to handle events that supersede prior decisions; the agent must infer all selection context from the tool name and sibling list.

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