goldhold_plan_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Record' does disclose a write/mutation operation, but the description does not mention side effects, what happens with the optional 'replaces' field, whether an existing decision is overwritten, or any permissions/expectations around the plan.

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 a single short sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and has no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise for the minimal information it conveys.

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, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, this one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent cannot reliably determine the meaning of 'replaces', the expected content of 'body' and 'why', the relationship of plan_slug, or what the tool returns or changes.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only loosely maps 'rationale' to 'why' and 'impact' to 'impact'. It leaves the semantics of plan_slug, topic, body, and especially 'replaces' unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('a decision within a plan'), and explicitly frames the content as including rationale and impact. Among sibling plan tools like goldhold_plan_fact and goldhold_plan_task, this clearly identifies a distinct resource type.

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 phrase 'within a plan' gives implied context for when to use this tool, and the decision-focused resource suggests it is for recording decisions rather than facts or tasks. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools might be better alternatives.

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