Record a decision

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying that the record is 'permanent' and an 'ADR', implying immutability and a formal structure. It does not enumerate side effects, but this is sufficient given the write intent and non-destructive annotation.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that cover purpose and usage—with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the key action and includes a clear trigger condition.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for the tool's role (permanent ADR storage) and when to invoke it, and combined with the detailed schema, it gives a complete picture for the simple use case. It does not mention return values or errors, but that is not required given the lack of an output schema.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Short decision title, max 80 chars.'), and the tool description does not add additional semantic meaning to the parameters. Thus, it meets the baseline for schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 that the tool records architectural or important project decisions as permanent ADRs, and specifies when to call it (upon making or confirming a significant technical choice). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_note and update_plan.

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 provides a clear trigger condition ('Call this whenever you make or the user confirms a significant technical choice'), which guides usage. It does not explicitly contrast with record_note, but the phrasing implies a decision-specific use case, making the guidance effective.

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