project_memory_record_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the decision is 'durable' and stored 'in Obsidian', implying persistence, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation/overwrite), authorization needs, or error states. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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, front-loaded with the main action ('Record') and context ('durable project decision in Obsidian'). Every sentence adds value 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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It omits parameter explanations and return value format. However, the tool's purpose and usage context are well-covered, making it minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'decision' and 'why' implicitly but does not explain the purpose or format of any parameter (e.g., projectPath, impact, alternatives). The agent lacks crucial details for constructing valid inputs.

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 action: 'Record a durable project decision in Obsidian.' It lists specific scenarios (chooses approach, rejects alternatives, changes scope, decides deployment/release behavior) that distinguish it from sibling tools like logging bugs or features.

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 use the tool: 'Use when the agent or user chooses an approach, rejects alternatives, changes scope, or decides deployment/release behavior.' It does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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