log_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that decisions become persistent structured records and that future agents can find them via get_context, which is valuable. But it does not mention return values, whether entries are append-only, overwrite semantics, or any side effects beyond logging. The core behavior is clear, yet incomplete.

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 with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the key value proposition. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The schema is rich and fully documents all 11 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat field details. It supplies the missing context: why the log exists, what it captures at a high level, and how future agents should retrieve it via get_context. It is sufficient for a single-purpose logging tool, though it does not specify the return value.

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. The description adds only general thematic alignment—context, rationale, alternatives, consequences—which loosely maps to parameters but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents. It does not clarify formats, defaults, or relationships between fields.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Log an architectural or design decision as a structured record.' It conveys the substance of the record—context, rationale, alternatives, consequences—which distinguishes it from generic note-taking. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like log_discovery, but the focus on WHY things were done gives meaningful differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when making an architectural or design decision that should be preserved for future context. It also hints at the consumption path via get_context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance about when NOT to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as log_discovery, create_note, or create_task.

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