add_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the record is 'permanent' and discloses where it appears, but does not detail side effects, authorization needs, or whether it overwrites existing data. The behavior is largely transparent for a simple creation tool, but lacks explicit safety or mutation details beyond 'permanently.'

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides usage guidance, and the third describes the outcome. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and outcome. However, the lack of parameter explanations creates a gap that makes the definition incomplete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0% and neither 'summary' nor 'location' are explained in the description. The word 'summary' appears in the usage hint but not as a parameter reference. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 records 'architectural or product decisions permanently' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_note' or 'log_issue' by noting decisions appear in 'summary.md' and 'pjm wrap' context blocks, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'when you make a choice that future sessions or contributors should know about.' It mentions the outcomes (appearing in summary.md and context blocks), implying when not to use it (e.g., for temporary notes). No exclusion criteria or alternatives are named, but the context is clear.

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