execute_decision

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

Annotations already declare the tool non-readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by mentioning the external webhook delivery, persistence of the execution receipt, and the exact receipt fields returned. It does not contradict the annotations, and it provides enough side-effect context for an agent to understand the operation.

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 well-structured sentences: purpose first, alternative routing second, and return details in a compact list. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema property names. It earns its place with high information density.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the receipt fields, compensating for that gap. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover idempotency and safety expectations. It does not describe error conditions, retry behavior, or webhook authentication, but those are not essential for selecting and invoking 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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds little to the parameter-level explanation beyond labeling the action as dispatching to a webhook and describing the receipt fields. This meets the baseline for schema-complete parameters but does not elevate it.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Dispatch a logged decision to an external webhook and persist the execution receipt.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from record_outcome and other siblings by naming the alternate usage. The return value list further specifies what the tool accomplishes.

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 explicitly states a when-not condition: 'Use record_outcome instead when reporting a result rather than dispatching an action.' This gives an agent a clear decision rule for choosing between closely related tools. The overall purpose also implies when to use this tool: when a logged decision needs to be dispatched and a receipt persisted.

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