Log Decision

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Record' and gives triggers; it does not disclose persistence, whether the entry can be overwritten, or what response the agent should expect. This is a meaningful gap for a write operation.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: first defines the action and objects, second gives a proactive trigger. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The schema fully documents all parameters and the description covers the trigger scenarios. There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained; the main missing piece is persistence or response behavior, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description mentions reasoning and alternatives but adds no detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('a decision') and names the content it captures (reasoning, alternatives). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_decisions, which reads decisions, by focusing on creating a log entry.

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?

Explicitly says to use proactively when the user makes a technical decision, chooses between options, or settles a debate. It gives a clear trigger but does not mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as add_note.

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