decision_evidence

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

Annotations already mark the tool as not read-only and as destructive, so the description does not need to re-establish the mutation profile. The description adds that the target must be an existing decision, but it does not disclose behavior like whether the evidence is appended, replaces prior evidence, or what side effects may occur.

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?

A single compact sentence contains the key action, resource, and scope. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words or redundant qualifications.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and a mutation-focused sibling suite, the description gives the minimum viable context. It identifies the action and target, but leaves behavior details such as validation failure modes, return value, and interaction with decision history unstated. Annotations cover some of the safety gap, but this is not complete enough for complex tool-use routing.

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 has full coverage with descriptions for all six parameters. The description adds nothing to parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. 'Quantitative or qualitative' adds no extra semantic weight because type enum already captures this.

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 ('Attach') and clearly identifies both the object (evidence) and the scope (an existing decision). It distinguishes itself from creating decisions through the word 'existing', though it does not explicitly name or reference sibling alternatives.

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 context is implied: use this when attaching quantitative or qualitative evidence to an existing decision. It does not explicitly describe when not to use it or which sibling tools to use instead, such as decision_add for creating decisions or decision_commit for finalizing them.

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