record_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls short. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, whether duplicate decisions are prevented, whether existing records are merged or overwritten, what prerequisites exist (e.g., do entities need to already exist for causal links?), or what happens on success. The mention of 'causal links' raises more questions than it answers about how linking is handled.

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 a single efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded, containing zero fluff or redundancy. However, it is so terse that it omits behavioral and usage context that would justify a few more words. Efficiency is high, but the economy comes at the cost of necessary guidance.

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?

For a write tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not disclose prerequisites (such as whether referenced entities must pre-exist for causal linking), does not indicate what the tool returns on success or failure, and does not clarify the linking behavior implied by 'causal links'. An agent calling this tool has no way to predict side effects or failure modes.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The schema already documents all 8 parameters with clear examples ('approved', 'loan_approval'). The description's mention of 'full context, causal links, and metadata' does not map to any specific parameters and adds no semantic value beyond the schema. This is a case where the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds nothing extra.

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 ('Record'), resource ('decision'), and destination ('Semantica knowledge graph'), which makes the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like add_entity or add_relationship, leaving the agent to infer why this tool is distinct. The phrase 'full context, causal links, and metadata' hints at scope but is not specific enough to separate it from the other write 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?

The description gives zero guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as add_entity, add_relationship, or run_reasoning. There is no 'use when' or 'use instead' language, and no indication of whether this tool is preferred for decision-specific writes versus generic entity or relationship additions. An agent must guess at the routing logic based solely on the name.

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