tidy_record_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It mentions 'Record' implying a write operation, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or storage location. The note 'NOT IMPLEMENTED YET' is a state disclosure but not about runtime behavior.

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 concise, with two sentences that convey the purpose and usage without extraneous detail. It is well-structured and easily parsed.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description provides moderate context: it explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, it omits any mention of return values or side effects, and the placeholder status ('NOT IMPLEMENTED YET') leaves some ambiguity about expected behavior.

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 shows zero parameters, which matches the lack of parameter information in the description. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to elaborate, but it also doesn't mention that the tool takes no arguments, which could be a minor gap.

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's purpose: to record why a change was made. The verb 'Record' and resource 'change reason' are specific, and the note about being called by tidy_apply provides some differentiation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: called automatically by tidy_apply and manually for decisions made in meetings. This implies it should not be used for changes already captured in diffs, providing an implicit when-not-to-use condition.

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