decisio_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action 'set' but does not reveal whether existing comparisons are overwritten, how duplicates are handled, or any side effects. The value scale is already in the schema, so the description adds no new behavioral context.

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 two sentences, immediately states the action, and gives precise conditional instructions. Every sentence is purposeful with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the core usage and conditional parameter semantics, but it omits crucial behavioral details such as whether comparisons are appended or replaced, and how the tool interacts with the overall decision flow (e.g., whether calculate is called separately). This is adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, and the schema already describes the value scale and the criterion's conditional usage. The description repeats this information without adding meaningful new detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'pairwise comparisons for criteria or options', with specific scope on criteria vs options. It uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings like calculate or create_decision, even without naming them.

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 clear usage context for two scenarios: criteria comparisons (omit criterion) and option comparisons (provide criterion). While it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, the directional guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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