decision_add

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

Annotations already establish that the action is mutating and destructive, and the description's 'add' aligns with that. It adds useful context that the decision is 'active' and stored in the 'local' Decision Graph, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether an existing active decision is overwritten or superseded.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to defining what the tool does.

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 mutating tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is accurate but minimal. It does not explain what being an 'active decision' means or how this call relates to the decision lifecycle, so an agent can invoke it but not fully anticipate its consequences.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, describing each field including scope, statement, component_ref, rationale, author, and alternatives_rejected. The description adds no disambiguation beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('an active decision to the local Decision Graph'). It communicates that the tool creates a decision record, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like decision_commit, decision_draft, or decision_import, so its scope is slightly dependent on inference.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many related decision tools. It implies that you call it when you need to add an active decision locally, but it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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