update_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It only states 'update' which implies mutation, but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as error handling, idempotency, access requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for an update 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and provides a concise usage guideline in the second sentence. Every word is necessary and there is no 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 6 parameters (5 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is brief. It covers the basic use case but does not explain return values, error conditions, or partial updates. While adequate for a simple tool, it leaves some gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, stating the general purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate semantics.

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 'update' and the resource 'existing decision', and explicitly differentiates from creating duplicate decisions. This provides a specific purpose that distinguishes it from siblings like add_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 says 'Use this instead of creating duplicate decisions', giving clear guidance on when to use. It also mentions the context of changing requirements or evolving approach. However, it does not explicitly list other alternatives or when not to use, though the sibling tools provide context.

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