set_decision_flag

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

Description adds behavioral insights beyond annotations: it writes a single amendment record to .codevira/decisions.jsonl, which is not indicated by readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false. This clarifies the non-destructive, append-only nature of the operation, though it doesn't specify return 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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The version is front-loaded, followed by purpose, usage guidance, and a clear contrast with an alternative. Every 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 three parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that are consistent, the description covers the essential behavioral context (writes amendment record) and usage guidance. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to make decisions.

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 each parameter is described adequately in the schema. The description adds semantic context by framing the operation as 'lightweight' and contrasting with supersede_decision, reinforcing that the parameters are for targeted updates rather than full rewrites. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states it performs a lightweight flag/tag update on an existing decision, using specific verbs like 'toggle' and 'correct'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from supersede_decision by highlighting the avoidance of mandatory rewrite, making the purpose distinct among sibling tools.

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 (toggle do_not_revert or correct tag list) and when not to (for semantic rewrites use supersede_decision). It also explains the action writes to a specific file, providing clear context for appropriate invocation.

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