record_decision_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a mutation ('attach action') but does not state that it modifies an existing record, whether the change is reversible, or any side effects. It also does not mention required permissions or potential errors. The transparency is minimal.

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 a single, clear sentence with a front-loaded verb, making it easy to parse. It avoids irrelevant detail. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices semantic richness, making it less useful than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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 the tool has two parameters, one of which is a nested object, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'recommendation' is, what constitutes an 'action taken', or what fields 'chosen_action' should contain. While an output schema exists, the description still fails to give the agent comprehensive context 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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters, and the description does not mention 'decision_id' or 'chosen_action' at all. The description's phrase 'action actually taken' vaguely relates to 'chosen_action', but it provides no explanation of what these parameters are or how to structure them, especially since 'chosen_action' is an open object. This is a major gap.

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's function: attaching the action actually taken to a previously persisted recommendation. This uses a specific verb ('attach') and resource ('recommendation'), distinguishing it from simpler read tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling 'record_decision_outcome', leaving slight ambiguity.

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 implies this is used after a recommendation has been persisted, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like 'record_decision_outcome' or conditions such as the recommendation existing or being in a certain state. Sibling tools are listed but not referenced.

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