decision_draft

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the useful behavior that the reason is intentionally left out at draft time. It does not clarify what side effects occur, whether an existing draft is overwritten, or what 'later confirmation' concretely requires.

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 clean sentence with no filler, and the most important behavior, 'Capture a decision,' is front-loaded. The deferred-rationale clause earns its place by clarifying that this is a draft action.

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?

The core action and the deferred-rationale behavior are present, and the input schema covers all parameters. However, with no output schema and a destructiveHint=true annotation, the definition leaves the concrete result of the operation and the handoff to finalization tools like decision_commit somewhat ambiguous.

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 fully documents all four parameters, so the description does not need to repeat their syntax. The description usefully signals that a 'why' field is absent by design, but it adds no per-parameter information beyond what schema descriptions already provide.

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 names a specific action ('Capture a decision') and a source/context ('working context'), and it clearly signals the provisional nature by saying the rationale is deferred for later confirmation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling decision tools like decision_commit or decision_add, so full differentiation is left mostly to the tool name.

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 phrase 'why deferred for later confirmation' implies this is for interim decisions that are not fully reasoned yet, which gives some usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus decision_commit, decision_add, or decision_supersede, nor does it state when not to use it.

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