tentra

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Persist' (implies write/mutation) and 'Supports supersession' (implies updates to older records), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this creates or updates records, authentication/permission requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with 10 parameters.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists key features—each word earns its place. It's front-loaded with the main action and efficiently structured.

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 complex mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., side effects, permissions), usage guidelines, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing context about how the tool behaves or what it returns.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'supersession' (hinting at 'superseded_by_id'), 'lifecycle status' (hinting at 'status'), and 'immediate entity links' (hinting at 'links'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 verb ('Persist') and resource ('Architecture Decision Record to the code graph') with specific capabilities ('Supports supersession, lifecycle status, and immediate entity links'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_decisions_for' (read) and 'link_decision' (add links later) by emphasizing creation/persistence with advanced features.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'can be added later with link_decision' for links, but doesn't clarify when to use 'record_decision' versus 'create_architecture' or 'record_contract' for different artifact types, or prerequisites like needing a workspace.

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