report_write_decision

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it records a user decision and a subsequent better-handling suggestion, which aligns with the idempotentHint. It does not detail whether existing decisions are overwritten, appended, or versioned, but annotations lower the burden and there is no contradiction.

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 dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical slash-separated list is somewhat hard to scan, but every part contributes meaning and the length is appropriate.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers the core workflow and the two central parameters. It is incomplete regarding the plan parameter and the boundary with report_write_fix, but an agent can still infer a reasonable call.

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 partially does: user_decision is clarified by the decision facets, better_handling is echoed as '更有效处理建议', and finding_id is implied by '某条发现'. However, the plan parameter is not explained, and the exact expected value format for user_decision remains vague.

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 uses a concrete verb ('记录/record') and a specific resource ('用户对某条发现的决定' / user decision on a finding), and it enumerates the decision facets stored (fix/risk/no-fix consequences/immediate or planned/authority). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as report_write_fix, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 phrase '用户决定之后' gives clear temporal context: the tool is used after the user has made a decision and to log the AI's follow-up handling suggestion. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling should be chosen instead, leaving some inference to the agent.

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