add_decree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses immutability, founder-key requirement, denial without the key, and 'fossiled' (likely meaning logged/recorded) behavior. It does not detail success return values or side effects beyond writing the decree, but it covers the most critical behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'FOUNDER ONLY' flag, followed by the action and constraints. Every sentence adds essential information without fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, an enum, no output schema) and zero annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and the meaning of enforcement modes, leaving major gaps for an agent to use the tool 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%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter explanations. It only implies 'founder_key' and 'text' indirectly without clarifying their formats or meaning. The optional parameters (rules, scope, enforce, supersedes) are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them.

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 action ('Write a new governing decree') and the resource ('governing decree'), with the explicit qualifier 'immutable fossil' that distinguishes it from siblings like list_decrees and seed_decrees. It also notes the founder-only restriction, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 strong contextual guidance by stating 'FOUNDER ONLY' and that agents cannot add, soften, or exempt themselves, plus that calls without the key are denied. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to prefer this over seed_decrees or list_decrees, though the use case is obvious.

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