mdan_create_decision_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses two behaviors: persistence of the record and registration in the context graph. It does not disclose further consequences (e.g., overwrite behavior, ID defaulting, auth requirements), so it remains above a 2 but below a 4.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the key action and context are front-loaded. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is terse. It explains the purpose and the graph side-effect but leaves nested structures like rounds and participant objects to the schema, and does not describe expected output. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 90%, and all required parameters have descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but that is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 specific verbs 'Save' and 'register' and names the resource 'decision record (DR-XXX)', making the operation concrete. It also gives the originating context ('from a debate or consensus session') and the integration target, which separates it from sibling graph/memory tools.

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?

It identifies the triggering scenario: saving a decision after a debate or consensus session. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to route use cases toward this tool.

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