decide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It labels the operation as a record/commit but says nothing about persistence, whether it overwrites a prior decision, how it interacts with plan/render, or what happens on failure. The only real behavioral content is the allowed decision values, which is thin for a state-mutating tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is terse rather than verbose, though the brevity is partly responsible for the missing semantics noted elsewhere.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description addresses only 3 of 7 parameters and none of the lifecycle context. An agent would have to guess at cut_id, project_dir, project, and talk, making this inadequate for correct invocation.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies 'decision' (keep/cut) and that start/end adjust cut edges, but project_dir, cut_id, talk, and project are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the 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 gives a specific verb+resource pair: 'Record the user's decision for one cut'. Combined with the stated decision values, an agent can tell this is a per-cut decision commit operation. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings such as import_decisions or list_cuts, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a plan or existing cuts first), and no routing to alternatives like import_decisions for bulk operations. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and siblings.

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