decision_draft

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

Description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and description confirms a capture operation but doesn't clarify what gets destroyed, whether it overwrites, or any side effects. No extra value.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence with zero waste. Every word carries meaning, front-loading the action and key nuance.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters (3 required) and destructiveHint=true, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain return behavior, success criteria, or how 'deferred' confirmation works. With no output schema, more completeness is needed for safe invocation.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level details, so it meets the baseline. No extra value beyond 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 provides a specific verb 'Capture' and resource 'a decision', with a unique nuance about deferring the 'why' for later confirmation. It clearly distinguishes from sibling decision tools like 'decision_commit' and 'decision_add' by indicating a provisional capture.

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. With many sibling decision tools (e.g., decision_commit, decision_add, decision_scope), the description should indicate that this is for tentative captures needing later confirmation, but it doesn't.

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