ClockNext: create outcome

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the pricing computation: base costs from live model prices, summing steps, and applying marginPercent. It also adds constraints like 1–50 steps and enabled models. It doesn't discuss error behavior or duplicate handling, but this goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 moderately sized but every sentence earns its place: defining the tool, explaining pricing mechanics, contrasting with units, and giving an alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and progressively adds context, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 multi-step create tool with rich schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what an outcome is, pricing calculation, step/model requirements, the unit distinction, dashboard alternative, and plan granting. This is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how `steps` map to per-step `agentKey` and `models`, and that `marginPercent` is applied to the summed base cost. It also clarifies that each step is an LLM step and non-LLM fixed-cost events belong in units.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Create an outcome type' and clearly defines it as 'a multi-step LLM deliverable billed per COMPLETED outcome.' It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by contrasting outcomes with units and referencing the dashboard alternative, so it is unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: outcomes are for 'token-priced, multi-LLM-step deliverables' while 'a fixed-cost / non-LLM event ... belongs in a UNIT.' It also names an alternative workflow ('build it in the dashboard') and notes the tool is a fallback, plus how plans grant access via an OUTCOME component.

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