propose_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions that the tool creates a 'proposed' record with a default importance of 8. It does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is destructive (though creation is typically non-destructive).

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the version and purpose. The version number could be considered clutter, but overall it is efficient and clear.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 2 required, no output schema) and the many sibling decision-related tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the creation workflow, how to link decisions via supersedes, or what the return value represents.

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 80% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds only the default importance value (already in schema) and the version number 'v2.1.0'. It does not clarify the meaning of the two undocumented parameters (sourceProjectId, sourceSessionId) beyond what the schema provides.

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 purpose: 'Propose a new architecture-decision-record (ADR-equivalent). Creates a 'proposed' DecisionRecord.' This identifies the verb (propose/create), resource (ADR/DecisionRecord), and distinguishes it from siblings like accept_decision, reject_decision, etc., which modify existing records.

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 for creating a new proposed decision but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use propose_decision vs. accept_decision or find_decisions_by_context). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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