decision_contest

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

Annotations already declare the operation as non-read-only and destructive, and the description meaningfully adds the concrete consequence: the decision stops governing immediately. It also discloses what does not happen, no deletion and no replacement requirement, reducing the risk of over-assuming side effects. It does not explain reversal or post-contest state, but the immediate behavioral consequence is well stated.

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 one sentence that front-loads the action and outcome, then adds two key exclusions. There is no filler, no repeated schema details, and no over-explanation. It earns high marks for conciseness and structure.

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 3-parameter destructive operation with annotations and a rich schema, the description gives the essential state information: contesting, active, stops immediately, no deletion, no replacement. It would be slightly more complete with an explicit note about the return value or resulting decision state, but the agent can safely call the tool with the provided information.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and each parameter already has a clear description including the graph-edge effect for evidence_ref. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level guidance, which is fine because the schema carries that burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 specific verb ('contest') and resource ('active decision'), and states the concrete outcome: the decision stops governing immediately. It also distinguishes the operation from deleting or superseding by explicitly saying it does neither. This is enough to separate it from the many decision_* sibling 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?

The description implies the correct usage: contest an active decision, especially when replacement is not intended. It provides a clear precondition ('active') and an implicit contrast with supersede, but it never explicitly names when to use this tool instead of decision_supersede, decision_evidence, or decision_commit. The usage guidance is present but left to inference.

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