decision_import

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

The description adds one meaningful behavioral beyond annotations: imported history is review-only until decision_commit. That is valuable. However, annotations mark this tool as destructive and readOnly=false, and the description does not explain what (if anything) gets changed, overwritten, or destroyed, or why it is unsafe. It does not directly contradict the annotation, but it also does not clarify it.

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?

Two concise sentences in 24 words: the first states the core operation at front, and the second adds the workflow gate. Every sentence has a direct purpose, with no fluff.

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 schema covers parameters and there is no output schema to explain. The description gives overall behavior and the review-only boundary, but remains thin on how the resultant prompts are delivered and what the destructiveHint means in practice. A capable agent could make the call, but would be guessing about side effects and outputs.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already adequately documented. The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning, such as how repo_path, doc_globs, max_commits, or max_chunk_chars affect the extraction, but the schema provides the necessary baseline.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Mine') and resource ('local git history and decision-bearing Markdown'), and states the output is 'provenance-tagged Decision Graph extraction prompts.' It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling 'decision_*' tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 'remains review-only until decision_commit' gives useful workflow context, implying this tool is the staging step before decision_commit. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives, nor does it give conditions to avoid it, so usage guidance is only implied.

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