set_decision

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Persists' and implies mutation ('record the decision'), but fails to disclose idempotency, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., invalidates open question status). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it sacrifices necessary detail; a slightly longer description with parameter clarifications would be more helpful without losing conciseness.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the 'open question' context, how parameters relate, or what happens after invocation. For a tool with this complexity and no other documentation, the description is inadequate.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description only clarifies 'step' and 'answer' indirectly. It does not explain 'algorithm' (likely an identifier) or 'by' (likely the decider), leaving 50% of parameters semantically opaque. The description adds minimal value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool records a decision (answer) on a step to resolve an open question, using specific resources like 'step' and 'decision'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_workflow_decision' or 'reopen_question', missing an opportunity to clarify its unique scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'set_workflow_decision' for workflow-level decisions, 'reopen_question' for reopening). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision context.

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