record_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool creates a dated markdown file and that existing files are not overwritten but instead get a numeric suffix. This is meaningful side-effect information, even though permissions and exact file location are not mentioned.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the purpose and the second explains the exact file behavior and collision handling. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 tool with eight parameters, four required, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too minimal. It covers file creation and overwrite avoidance but leaves unclear how the parameters map to the generated document, when to choose this over sibling tools, and what a valid call should look like.

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 needed to explain the eight parameters, but it only implies a slug derived from the title. It does not clarify project, context, decision, rationale, alternatives, consequences, or related_files. The parameter names are self-explanatory enough to avoid a 1, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 resource: 'Store a durable architecture or engineering decision.' It then specifies the concrete artifact, YYYY-MM-DD-<decision-slug>.md, which makes the tool clearly distinct from siblings like capture_work_session, append_daily_note, and search_memory.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use record_decision versus the listed alternative tools. The phrase 'durable architecture or engineering decision' implies a use case, but the description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or how this differs from session capture or daily note appending.

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