knowl_decide

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

The only annotation is openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important side effects: superseded decisions are retired in the same write but remain queryable, no Knowl AI configuration is required, and the result reports any conflicting active decision plus the exact call to retire it. It does not cover every possible side effect, but the key write behavior is transparent.

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 dense but purposeful, front-loading the core purpose and distinguishing sibling behavior before moving to constraints and supersede semantics. Each sentence carries information; only the 'Needs no Knowl AI configuration' sentence is somewhat peripheral, but it is short and relevant to adoption. No 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 output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential decision-making context: what to record, when to use it, when not to, how supersedes behaves, and what the result will report about lingering conflicts. The full return shape is not specified, but the description gives agents enough to call it correctly and interpret the key output.

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, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema: it explains that reasoning is the point (required here, optional in knowl_store), that alternatives capture what was rejected, and that supersedes links the write to retiring an earlier decision. This is meaningful semantic value, not schema repetition.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Record a confirmed project decision,' and enumerates the content (what was chosen, why, and what was rejected). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from knowl_store by naming when each is appropriate, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use knowl_decide rather than knowl_store when reasoning and alternatives are the point, and record only settled decisions, not options under discussion. It also provides conditional guidance for the supersedes parameter, instructing the agent to retire replaced decisions rather than leave contradictions.

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