decide_sensitivity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions the high-level behavior (winner robustness under weight changes) but does not disclose output format, side effects, required method, or execution details.

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 text is concise and front-loaded with the domain verb 'DECIDE,' but it is a fragmentary under-specification rather than a well-structured description. It is short but not sufficiently informative.

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 6 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this single clause is completely inadequate for agent selection and 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for all 6 parameters, and the description adds no meaning to options, criteria, scores, steps, method, or variation. The agent has no clue how to populate these fields from the description.

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: assessing the robustness of the decision winner to criteria-weight changes. It is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like decide or decide_score, though it does not delineate against sim_sensitivity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sim_sensitivity, stress_test_decision, or decide. No exclusions, prerequisites, or situational context are provided.

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