log_decision

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool logs/persists a decision, but does not describe side effects, whether the entry is immutable, what happens on success, or any required permissions. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the verb 'Log'.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the object, and the purpose in eleven words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple logging tool with fully documented parameters, this is close to sufficient. However, the absence of annotations and any mention of output or relationship to get_decisions leaves some uncertainty about expected confirmation and how logged decisions are later retrieved. The description does not fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only reinforces that 'reasoning' is part of the decision log. This is adequate but not additive.

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 ('Log') with a distinct resource ('analytical decision') and a clear point ('for tribal knowledge capture'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_decisions (read) and add_learning (generic knowledge capture).

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 implies a use case—capturing analytical decisions—but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_learning or get_decisions. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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