tree_decide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that quote decides nothing, that the answer is 'recorded as the session's, never as the person's,' that price 'never lowers a price and moves no money,' and which actions are refused outright (money, close, abandon, personal-data). The gaps are operational rather than safety-related — no mention of failure modes for an expired or mismatched hash.

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 dense block with no paragraph or list structure, mixing sequencing rules, schema workarounds ('at the quote, reason is required by the schema but not recorded for a price: write "asking the user"'), and policy refusals. Long all-caps runs bury critical instructions such as the mandatory user confirmation. Front-loading exists but is defeated by the wall-of-text delivery.

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 high-stakes, 17-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the decision policy and human-approval boundaries well but omits what quote actually returns in structured terms beyond 'exact text and its hash,' and leaves several parameters unexplained. An agent could grasp intent but would likely misfill non-obvious fields like changesProvides or conditions.

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% with 17 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partially does. It explains the step and form enums, reason, planMode, and the price fields (model, inUsdPerM, outUsdPerM, source), but leaves run, node, gate, stop, text, milestone, conditions, changesProvides, and the shown/hash linkage undocumented or only obliquely implied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Answer a stop of a recursive-councils sub-plan as the controlling session, in two calls,' and enumerates the four steps and five forms. The purpose is clear once parsed, but the description never contrasts itself with close siblings like tree_status or price_raise, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Gives explicit routing for each step and form: quote-then-answer sequencing, 'when you cannot decide, step "defer" hands the stop to the person,' and the narrow preconditions for 'frontier' ('otherwise it is refused and the person approves it with council tree approve'). It stops short of naming which sibling tool to use instead for overlapping cases, notably whether form "price" supersedes the sibling price_raise.

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