record_decision

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

Annotated readOnlyHint=false already indicates a write, but the description adds location ('writes one event under .agentpack/') and a security behavior ('secret-like values are redacted'), which are not present in structured annotations. This provides valuable behavioral context without contradicting any 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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose and persistence, the second gives usage boundaries, and the third discloses location and redaction behavior. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded.

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 simple write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use (and not use), the write location, and redaction behavior. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given the high schema coverage and distinction from siblings.

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 schema describes all three parameters (text, files, evidence) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific detail (e.g., format of files or evidence), but the schema is sufficient; the redaction note is general rather than parameter-specific.

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 uses the specific verb 'Append' and names the resource 'technical or product decision to the Agentpack ledger', clearly stating the persistence goal so future sessions inherit it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_dead_end or record_source.

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 states when to call: 'decisions that matter beyond this session (architecture, contracts, tradeoffs)' and when not to: 'not for routine preferences or per-edit narration'. This provides clear usage criteria and exclusions without needing to reference siblings.

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