decide

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

The annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'log'. It does not disclose what could be destroyed, whether existing files are overwritten, or any side effects. Since the annotation already flags destructiveness, the description fails to add any extra transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or wasted content.

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 complete schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of return values, file modifications, or consequences of the destructive hint, leaving some contextual gaps. It does not leverage the opportunity to explain expected outcomes beyond the action itself.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action: "Log an architectural/design decision to the project's decisions directory." It names a specific verb (log), a resource (architectural/design decision), and a location (decisions directory), which distinguishes it from generic write tools among siblings.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions alternatives or excludes cases (e.g., 'use write instead if ...'). The purpose is implied by the name, but no explicit selection criteria are given.

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