mark_decision_outdated

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant context: the tool writes one amendment to .codevira/decisions.jsonl, audit is preserved, it is reversible via set_decision_flag(is_outdated=false), and it stops the decision from surfacing in list/search tools. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with version and purpose, then covers behavior, usage, and reversibility. No superfluous words; every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers behavior, side effects, alternatives, and reversibility. It lacks return value details but that's acceptable without an output schema. Slightly more about error states could improve, but overall complete.

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% and already describes each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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The description uses a specific verb ('tombstone' / 'mark as outdated') and clearly identifies the resource ('a decision'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'supersede_decision' by noting when to use each, and lists which tools are affected (get_session_context, search_decisions, list_decisions).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when a decision is simply no longer true and has NO successor'. Also specifies when not to use and provides an alternative: 'for a replacement, use supersede_decision to preserve lineage'. Mentions reversibility via set_decision_flag.

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