record_charge_onboarding_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that accept/apply/merge/split decisions are rejected, and lists the supported actions. However, it does not describe potential side effects (e.g., overwriting previous decisions), required permissions, or the lifecycle after recording.

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: the first states the primary purpose, the second adds necessary constraints. No redundant information, well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (nested object params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main action and exclusions but falls short on parameter details. An agent would need additional context to properly construct the 'decision' object.

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%, and the description provides almost no parameter-level guidance. The 'decision' parameter is an object with additionalProperties true, but the description only lists action strings without clarifying the required structure or any additional fields. 'candidate_id' is mentioned only implicitly. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 action ('Record a review decision') and resource ('charge-onboarding candidate'). It lists supported actions (defer, reject, needs_more_evidence, in_review, reset) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'apply_charge_onboarding_candidate' by stating that accept/apply/merge/split are rejected here.

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 when to use this tool (for decisions like defer, reject, etc.) and when not to (for accept/apply/merge/split, which are handled by a separate guarded slice). This provides clear guidance on selection versus siblings.

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