record_decision

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 explains that optional constraint and pattern parameters modify active constraints and agreed patterns, and that the tool returns a confirmation with a decision ID. It does not mention persistence or permissions, but enough behavior is disclosed for a record operation.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-liner followed by an Args list and Returns statement. Every parameter earns its place, and the layout is easy to scan. No unnecessary fluff.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is complete: it covers all parameters, describes the return value, and notes optional side effects. The output schema exists, so return details are not over-explained, but the description still provides the key info. It adequately fulfills its contextual role.

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 0% (no descriptions in the schema), yet the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: category with examples, description, rationale, session_id, optional constraint/pattern with their effects, and project_root. This is a comprehensive mapping that adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Record an architectural or technical decision for this session,' which clearly specifies the verb (record), resource (decision), and scope (for this session). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like record_consultation by focusing on decisions rather than consultations.

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 usage: use this when you need to log a decision. It provides context about optional side effects (adding constraints/patterns) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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