append_decision

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral aspects. It states the tool stores a structured record and warns against storing code. However, it does not disclose idempotency, overwrite behavior, or required permissions, which could be important for a write operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage, and constraints. It lacks details about return value or error handling, but for a storage-oriented tool, the described aspects are sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that parameters correspond to ADR fields and by explicitly warning against storing full source code, which clarifies the intended use of the parameters beyond the schema.

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 purpose: record an architecture/design decision. It uses specific verbs ('Record', 'Stores') and names the output format (structured ADR). It distinguishes from sibling tools like append_api_contract by focusing on decisions.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this after making a significant technical choice.' Also instructs what not to store ('Do not store full source code'). Could mention alternative tools for other purposes, but the context is clear.

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