reaffirm_decision

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the precise side effect: appending a single 'reaffirmed_at' amendment to .codevira/decisions.jsonl and resetting the clock. It also clarifies important nuances: the lock never auto-flips, the flag is advisory, and soft-expiry can be configured via an environment variable.

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 dense but efficient: every sentence contributes either the core action, the trigger condition, the configuration, the side effect, or an alternative. The action is front-loaded, and no sentence is filler.

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?

With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers the decision trigger, the expiry mechanism, the environment override, the exact file mutation, and the relevant sibling tools — more than enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 already fully documents the single decision_id parameter with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds selection semantics beyond the schema: the decision should be soft-expired and still load-bearing, which helps the agent choose the right id. It does not add syntax or format details, but the schema is already sufficient for that.

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 states a specific verb ('refresh') on a specific resource ('a do_not_revert decision's soft-expire clock'), making the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming supersede_decision and set_decision_flag as the tools for different operations.

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 explicitly says when to call the tool: 'on a soft-expired decision that is still load-bearing.' It also gives clear alternatives with conditions: 'For semantic rewrites use supersede_decision; for flipping the flag use set_decision_flag.' The soft-expiry trigger is made observable via dnr_soft_expired and dnr_age_days, so an agent can decide with concrete evidence.

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