ClockNext: update outcome

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

The description explicitly discloses that this is a full rewrite, not a partial patch, and that omitted steps/fields are dropped. It also reveals that step prices are re-grounded from the models mixer and warns that agent keys are runtime bindings that must be changed deliberately, providing substantial context beyond the 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?

Four sentences front-load the essential semantics of full replacement and the prerequisite of reading first. Every sentence contributes operational value with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of nested steps and model mixers, the description covers the main pitfalls: full rewrite semantics, read-before-update, and agent key sensitivity. Combined with the exhaustive schema, the agent has sufficient information to 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?

The schema covers all parameters at 100%, but the description adds critical semantic context about the 'complete new definition' rewrite behavior and re-grounding of step prices. This clarifies how the parameters interact, exceeding the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 'Replace an outcome by id' which clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the phrase 'COMPLETE new definition' distinguishes it from create/archive/get. This specificity leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides a clear prerequisite by instructing to read the current outcome with clocknext_get_outcome first, and references 'same as create' to set expectations. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the guidance effectively indicates when to use this tool.

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