add_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It reveals important behavioral traits: call during conversation, focus on why, and that the 'force' parameter skips conflict detection. It does not mention mutability or idempotency but is transparent enough 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?

The description is well-structured with a bold imperative opening, bulleted triggers, and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, though it is somewhat lengthy. It efficiently conveys crucial information without redundancy.

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 (7 parameters, 5 required, no output schema), the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks details about return values or default behavior in conflict scenarios. It hints at conflict detection via 'force' but doesn't describe what happens normally, which is a gap.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'global' and 'force' parameters beyond the schema, clarifying their purpose and usage. This lifts the score above baseline.

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: capturing decisions when specific phrases are uttered or when design/architectural choices are made. It uses a specific verb ('capture decisions') and resource ('decisions'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_decisions or delete_decision.

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 explicitly tells when to call the tool ('IMMEDIATELY' upon decision phrases) and provides extensive examples and triggers. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools for viewing decisions, though the sibling list provides context.

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