Record outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the outcome feeds future routing decisions (i.e., the write is persistent and consequential), but it omits whether repeated calls overwrite an existing record, whether the verdict is required for routing to function, and what is returned.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient but leaves no room for the missing usage and parameter detail.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. The agent cannot tell how to fill score versus verdict or what the persistence semantics are.

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% for four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'verdict' is hinted at by 'subjective verdict', but nothing explains 'agent' (name vs. ID), 'notes', or the 0-1 'score' and how it relates to the categorical verdict.

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 ('subjective verdict on a completed delegation') plus the downstream purpose ('future routing decisions'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling set (stop_agent, resolve_approval, get_agent_result), though it never explicitly names a contrasting sibling.

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?

'on a completed delegation' implies the trigger condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no statement about whether it is required after every delegation, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that this is called after get_agent_result rather than instead of it.

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