decision_add

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating state mutation. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond the basic add operation. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or what 'active' means.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage guidance without becoming verbose.

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 add operation with 6 params, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain the Decision Graph context, what happens on success, or the meaning of 'active'. Given no output schema, some additional context would help agents fully understand the tool's role.

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 all 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 ('Add') and the resource ('active decision') and specifies the target ('local Decision Graph'). The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling decision tools like decision_commit or decision_draft.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., decision_commit, decision_draft). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when to avoid using it.

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