decisionnode/DecisionNode

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions persistence ('future context') and implies conflict detection exists (via the 'force' parameter reference to conflicts), but fails to explain the conflict resolution flow, idempotency, or what the tool returns when conflicts are detected. Adequate but incomplete for a write operation.

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?

Well-structured with bold front-loading ('Call this IMMEDIATELY'), followed by trigger phrases, numbered scenarios, and timing guidance. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose (triggers, scenarios, timing, content). Slightly verbose but no waste given the complexity of the triggering conditions.

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 7-parameter schema with 100% coverage and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness for when/why to invoke. Minor gap: could briefly acknowledge the conflict detection behavior implied by the 'force' parameter, though this is partially covered in the schema itself.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds semantic value by mapping usage concepts to parameters: 'Focus on WHY' guides the rationale parameter, 'Clear statement' guides the decision parameter, and the trigger scenarios guide the scope parameter. This helps the agent understand not just what parameters exist, but how to populate them based on conversation context.

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 explicitly states the tool captures/creates decisions when users express preferences or make technical choices, using specific trigger phrases ('Let's use...', 'Always do...'). It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from siblings (get_decision, list_decisions, search_decisions) which are retrieval operations.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: lists specific trigger phrases, enumerates five concrete scenarios (design patterns, architectural choices, coding standards, UI/UX conventions, technology stack), specifies timing ('DURING the conversation, not after'), and content focus ('Focus on WHY, not just WHAT').

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