record_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses substantial behavior: it writes to decisions.csv, defines a decision state machine, notes required reasons, defaults, legacy aliases, and that undo returns to the previous state. It still omits permissions, idempotency, and what the tool returns after recording.

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 action is front-loaded and most clauses carry useful constraint information, but the decision list is a dense semicolon-separated wall of text with nested parentheticals. It is appropriately sized for the domain but could be structured more scanably.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers decision semantics well but is not complete: it omits several parameters and does not explain the result of recording a decision. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains decision values, reason requirements, sent_date format/default, amount_excl_vat behavior, verdict options, and kind options for resolved, but leaves invoice, folder, and linked_invoice unexplained, so meaningful gaps remain.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Record ... in decisions.csv." The extensive decision-value list makes clear this is a decision-recording tool, distinct from the read/check-oriented siblings, though the phrase "Sanne's call" is internal jargon and the first sentence does not explicitly say it records an invoice decision.

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 gives detailed conditions for choosing each decision value, including when a reason is required, what defaults apply, and that old names still work. It does not explicitly say when to call this tool versus siblings like check_invoice or read_invoice, but the decision-value guidance is unusually concrete.

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