rlm_decision_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions key details: auto-generates DEC-XXX IDs, supports tags, and requires specific fields. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, or response structure (no output schema). The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 reasonably concise: a clear first sentence, then a short list of captured fields, then a list of use cases. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. Could be slightly tighter, but overall 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?

For a creation tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, and key fields. It lacks return value details and error conditions, but the provided information is sufficient to understand when to use the tool and what inputs are expected.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing core concepts (context, rationale, alternatives, revert plans) but does not elaborate on each parameter. It adds some value but is not extensive.

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 explicitly states the tool creates a structured ADR-style decision record. It uses a specific verb (Create) and resource (structured decision record). The 'Use for' section and examples (database choice, framework selection) distinguish it from siblings like rlm_decision_query and rlm_decision_supersede.

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 provides clear scenarios for use (architectural decisions, technical trade-offs, process decisions) under 'Use for'. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the listed contexts imply appropriate use. It does not compare to alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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