SuperSkill

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

decide

Destructive

Log architectural and design decisions to a project's decisions directory, capturing context, alternatives, and consequences for future reference.

Instructions

Log an architectural/design decision to the project's decisions directory.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "decision": "<decision>"
    },
    "name": "decide"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Decision title
`context`	No	Why this decision was needed
`project`	No	Project slug (auto-detected if omitted)
`decision`	Yes	What was decided
`alternatives`	No	Alternatives considered
`consequences`	No	Known trade-offs
`workspace_path`	No	Absolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1Oct 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / workspace_path

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.6.1Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, leaving the description to explain the write behavior, and it does not: it never says whether an existing decision is overwritten, appended, or versioned, what file format is produced, or what makes the operation 'destructive'. Only the storage location is disclosed, so a meaningful behavioral gap remains for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. Given a seven-parameter mutation tool, however, the extreme brevity arguably under-serves rather than optimizes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and only a single annotation hint, the description should carry more weight. It omits the decision-record format, the relationship between 'project' and 'workspace_path', and the result of the call, leaving an agent to infer the contract.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters (title, context, decision, alternatives, consequences, project, workspace_path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond that, which matches the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Log') and resource ('architectural/design decision') plus the destination ('project's decisions directory'), which is concrete enough to act on. It does not, however, distinguish this from plausible siblings like 'capture', 'learn', 'spec', or 'evidence', which also record project artifacts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many other recording tools ('spec', 'tickets', 'evidence', 'capture', 'learn', 'brainstorm'). The only guidance is implicit in the word 'decision'.

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