decision_scope

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

The description aligns with annotations: destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, indicating this is a mutating operation. It clarifies that scopes are narrowed and the likely effect is that both decisions stay active, but it does not disclose side effects, whether previous scopes are overwritten, or what happens if the scopes are not actually distinct.

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 a single focused sentence with no excess wording, repeating, or structural clutter. It presents the core action and intended result front-loaded and reads clearly.

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 four-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but leaves some practical gaps: it does not define what a valid 'scope' looks like, whether the two scopes must be non-overlapping, or what the agent should do before/after calling. The full schema and annotations help, but a little more conceptual context would make this tool safer to use.

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 already have meaningful descriptions: id_a/id_b identify existing decisions and scope_a/scope_b are the narrowed scopes. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, which is acceptable because the schema already carries the full semantic load.

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 ('narrow') with a clear resource ('two decisions' and their 'scopes') and the intended outcome: both decisions can remain active. This distinguishes it from generic get/list/commit tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like decision_supersede or decision_contest.

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 'so both can remain active alongside one another' implies when this tool should be used: when two decisions would otherwise conflict or overlap and both need to be kept. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling tool such as decision_supersede.

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