memorybank_record_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral trait 'No usa IA - registro directo en el documento' (no AI, direct write). However, it omits other important behaviors like whether it appends or overwrites, permission requirements, or idempotency, leaving gaps.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose followed by an itemized list of fields. It uses a bullet style that is easy to scan, though it could be slightly shorter without losing meaning.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and fields but lacks details on error handling, whether the decision log is append-only, or if existing project validation occurs. This leaves some practical context incomplete for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing all decision fields and providing explicit category enum values (architecture, technology, etc.), which are not in the schema as an enum. This helps agents understand valid values beyond the schema's generic description.

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 records a technical decision in the project's decision log, with a specific verb ('Registra') and resource ('decisión técnica en el log de decisiones'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memorybank_write_file by focusing on decisions, not generic file writing.

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 explains the tool is useful for maintaining an architectural/technical decision history for future reference, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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