decision_import

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that imported history is review-only, partially clarifying the nature of the operation. However, it does not detail what side effects occur (e.g., writes to a temporary store) or explain the behavior beyond this hint. With annotations providing a baseline, the description adds moderate 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes a key workflow detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a usage hint but lacks details on return values (what form do extraction prompts take?), prerequisites (must have a git repo), and what 'review-only' means in practice. Given the complexity, more context would be helpful.

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 the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, 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 tool mines local git history and decision-bearing Markdown into provenance-tagged extraction prompts. It uses a specific verb ('mine') and resource, and implies a unique function compared to siblings like decision_add and decision_commit.

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 provides workflow context by noting that imported history remains review-only until decision_commit, helping agents understand when to use this tool (bulk import) versus manual addition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or 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.