create_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 100% deterministic and states the default method (weighted_sum) plus alternatives, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not discuss error handling, input validation, or side effects, though for a pure calculation tool these are less critical.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and outputs. Every sentence contributes: the first details functionality, the second signals priority, and the third notes determinism and default method. No unnecessary 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (winner, ranking, breakdowns, explanation) and notes determinism. It does not describe input formatting beyond what the schema provides, but given a rich schema, this is acceptable. Slight gaps remain regarding edge cases or exact response structure.

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 75%, with method lacking a description in the schema. The description adds 'method defaults to weighted_sum (also weighted_product, topsis)', but the schema already includes the enum and default for method, so the added value is minimal. Other parameters are already described well in 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 it ranks named options against weighted criteria and specifies the outputs: winner, full ranking, per-criterion breakdowns, methodology, and explanation. Phrases like 'Main tool' and enumerating return values distinguish it from sibling tools such as score_options and sensitivity_analysis.

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 provides clear context: this is the main tool for ranking options with weighted criteria. It implies use this as the primary decision tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The 'Main tool' label gives some prioritization, though no explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings are made.

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