record_decision

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about the rationale for the rejected field, but does not directly disclose important side effects such as whether this creates a new record or updates an existing one (the 'supersedes' parameter hints at replacement but is not explained). This is acceptable given the annotations, but the description could add more operational clarity.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and fields. The subsequent sentences justify the 'rejected' field without redundancy. Every sentence contributes to understanding, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the rich input schema (100% coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for selecting and invoking the tool. It clarifies the main purpose and the distinguishing rejected field. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'record' or 'store_thought', but the focus on decisions is strong enough. A brief note on when to use this versus those siblings would make it fully complete.

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 meaningful semantic value by highlighting the importance of the 'rejected' parameter, explaining why it is the core of a decision record. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand how to populate that field correctly. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters.

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 specific verb ('Record') with a clear resource ('a decision') and enumerates the core fields ('what was chosen, what was rejected, and why'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like store_thought or record by focusing on decisions and emphasizing the rejected alternatives, making the tool's intent unmistakable.

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 clearly implies the tool is for recording decisions, and it provides context on why this is valuable (preserving rejected alternatives). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over siblings like store_thought or record, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives. This is clear context without explicit comparison.

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