record_decision

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a write/recording side effect but does not reveal whether decisions are appended, deduplicated, tied to an existing feature, or returned with an ID; no failure or permission implications are mentioned.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and adds minimal noise. The '[MCP Tool]' prefix is unnecessary, but otherwise every phrase earns its place.

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 six-parameter recording tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it lacks usage guidance, behavioral expectations, and parameter clarification. An agent could call it correctly based on names and schema, but only by guessing at conventions.

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%, and the description only partially maps to parameters: '선택 대안' aligns with alternatives and '결정 주체' with decided_by, while feature_id, question, chosen_option, and reason are left to their bare names. It adds some domain context but does not sufficiently compensate for the total absence of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('기록합니다' / records) and names the resource: important architecture or implementation decisions, alternatives, and decision subject. It is clear enough to distinguish from unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with record_debug_attempt.

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 phrase '아키텍처 또는 구현 방식에 관한 중요한 의사결정' implies this tool is for significant design decisions rather than routine logs or debug attempts. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over record_debug_attempt or other siblings, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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