record_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It conveys that the tool records persistent decision information and returns a decision ID, and it describes what data is stored. However, it does not disclose details such as permission requirements, idempotency, error handling, or what happens if referenced concept/hypothesis IDs are invalid.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first and a clear Args/Returns layout. It is slightly verbose due to some redundancy between the opening sentence and the 'Captures WHY...' explanation, but it remains efficient and readable.

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?

Given six untitled parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that only says 'The decision ID', the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, every parameter, and return value. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or inter-tool relationships (e.g., whether concept IDs must exist), but the core usage is well explained.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter in the Args block with concrete examples (e.g., choice 'Folded cascode OTA', constraints 'VDD=1.2V, area<100um2'). It also clarifies semantic relationships like 'motivated_by' and 'related_concepts', which the bare schema leaves ambiguous.

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+resource: 'Record a design decision with rationale, alternatives, and constraints.' It clearly explains what the tool does and what it captures, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_hypothesis or record_bench_result by focusing on design decisions.

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 provides clear context: it is for capturing design decisions and enabling re-evaluation when specs change. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough within the sibling set, giving strong implied guidance.

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