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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false) already indicate a write operation. The description adds context about specific side effects: updating last_used_at_ms even on failure and feeding the dedup-on-success counter. While not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of error handling or idempotency), it provides valuable behavioral insight beyond annotations.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the primary action, explaining the internal consequence, and noting an additional effect. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and side effects comprehensively. It explains why the outcome matters for future skill comparisons and recency searches, making it complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it.

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% (both id and success have descriptions). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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?

The description explicitly states the action ('mark whether the invocation succeeded'), the resource ('skill outcome'), and the context ('after dispatching a skill's step sequence'). It also mentions how the recorded outcome feeds into the Voyager dedup-on-success counter, distinguishing it from sibling tools like invoke_skill and search_skills.

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 indicates when to use this tool ('after dispatching a skill's step sequence') and explains its role in the pipeline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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