audit_record_decision

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that decisions are appended to the audit chain without populating mcp_tool_audit, a key behavioral trait. Does not mention side effects or permissions but is adequate for a simple append 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, each carrying significant information. First sentence combines purpose and key behavioral detail; second provides usage context. No redundant 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?

With 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, description should provide more parameter context. It gives a good high-level purpose and usage but lacks explanation of individual parameters beyond listing example decision values. Provides adequate context for use but not full completeness.

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%, but description does not explain any parameters. It mentions example values for 'decision' in the text but does not link them to the schema or explain required/optional fields like trace_id and runtime_policy_basis.

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?

Description clearly states it appends runtime decisions (release/block/defer/redact) to an audit chain, distinguishing it from record_tool_call which populates mcp_tool_audit. The verb 'append' and resource 'audit chain' are specific.

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?

Explicitly says it's for non-MCP policy events the host wants to record alongside MCP calls, implying it should not be used for MCP tool calls (use record_tool_call instead). Could be improved by stating direct alternatives.

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