record_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a save operation and mentions explicit sharing and supersession, but does not disclose persistence scope, permission requirements, duplicate handling, or what happens when source/evidence_files are missing.

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?

Two short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. The wording is efficient and avoids filler, though it is arguably too sparse given the tool's parameter count.

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?

This is a complex 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the required evidence_files or source semantics, nor the many optional fields, leaving an agent unable to invoke it reliably.

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?

With 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate heavily, but it adds little. It implies kind values (decision/constraint/blocker) and the presence of a supersedes field, yet leaves scope, session_id, status, topic, source, and evidence_files essentially unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('decision/constraint/blocker'), making the core action clear. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like check_decisions or share_memory_record, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Sharing and supersession are explicit' hints that sharing/supersession require deliberate fields, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus check_decisions, share_memory_record, or record_review_outcome. It also gives no when-not conditions or prerequisites.

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