record_decision

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavior. It adds useful context for decision_key (stable kebab-case), decided_at (effective date), and scope (repo/client/practice), but omits critical behaviors like whether duplicate keys overwrite, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., creation vs. update). The description is partially transparent but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise (4 sentences) with the main purpose front-loaded. The bullet-like clarifications for decision_key, decided_at, and scope are efficient. However, additional structure (e.g., grouping parameters) could improve scannability.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain the return value, error conditions, or how to use all 10 parameters. Given the tool's moderate complexity and missing schema descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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. It explains only 3 of 10 parameters (decision_key, decided_at, scope), leaving repo, client, statement, rationale, source, session_id, and alternatives_rejected undocummented. This partial coverage fails to guide an agent on the majority of inputs.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('settled architectural decision'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall_decisions or supersede_decision by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or modification. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 usage for persisting decisions to avoid re-litigation, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs. supersede_decision or decisions_as_of). No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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