record_owner_decision

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent write, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a hard guardrail that the agent must not self-approve or fabricate the owner_quote. It doesn't disclose what recording actually does downstream or that non-idempotent calls may create duplicates, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the imperative and the critical constraint immediately after. No filler; every clause carries actionable meaning.

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?

The critical misuse case is well covered, which is the highest-value content for this tool, but with 0% param coverage, no output schema, and no explanation of the 'ref' target or downstream effect, an agent still cannot fully understand what it is recording against.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies one of three parameters (owner_quote as verbatim owner words). The meaning of 'ref' (what is being referenced) and 'approved' (approve/reject sign) is left entirely undefined.

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+resource (record the OWNER's decision), which is clear and distinct in intent from generic siblings like record_review or create_proposal. However, 'decision' remains slightly abstract — it never says it is an approval/rejection of a proposal — and it doesn't explicitly contrast with the nearby recording tools.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('only call with the owner's own words from this conversation') plus strong exclusions ('never infer, assume, or self-approve'). It does not name an alternative tool for the cases it forbids, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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