taskguard_record_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'records rationale for later review', indicating a write operation with no destructive behavior implied. This is clear enough, though it could mention whether the record is append-only or overwrites, and if any authentication is needed.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with usage context. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first tells when to use it, the second explains the outcome. No wasted 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'sessionId' refers to (likely a session identifier) or how 'alternativesConsidered' should be used. The return value is not mentioned. While the core use case is clear, details are missing.

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% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'decision' and 'rationale' implicitly but does not explain 'sessionId' or 'alternativesConsidered'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 the tool's purpose: recording decisions when choosing an implementation approach, rejecting alternatives, or determining scope. It uses specific verbs ('record', 'choosing', 'rejecting', 'deciding') and names the resource ('decision'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like taskguard_add_checkpoint or taskguard_check_scope_drift.

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 explicitly lists three concrete scenarios for using the tool: choosing an approach, rejecting an alternative, or deciding scope. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like taskguard_check_scope_drift. Still, the guidance is strong.

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