post_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses persistence ('会被保留和累积，不随认领表滚动清理'), visibility via get_board, and traceability via agent/timestamp. These go beyond the schema; only minor operational details like duplicate/overwrite behavior are absent.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then retention behavior, then parameter guidance, with bullet-style parameter lines. It is not padded and each section adds value. Minor redundancy with the schema list is acceptable because it adds usage guidance.

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 append tool, the core behavior and the two required parameters are well covered, and output schema exists so return details needn't be described. However, the project parameter is entirely undocumented both in schema and description, and no explicit 'when not to use' boundary is given. This leaves a small but real gap.

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 document parameters. It explains agent ('要和认领时一致') and decision format ('一句话讲清楚定了什么、为什么'), but says nothing about the optional project parameter. Since one of three parameters remains undefined, compensation is incomplete.

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?

Description opens with '写决策：往共享决策区追加一条约定' and states visibility via get_board. It lists concrete use cases (定协议、记方案取舍、留踩坑结论), which distinguishes it from sibling note/claim tools. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 says '用于定协议、记方案取舍、留踩坑结论——凡是"需要别人看见并遵守"的内容', giving clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives like send_note or state when not to use it, but the category '需要别人看见并遵守' implies the boundary.

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