report_outcome

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

Annotations only carry a title and idempotentHint=false; the description does the heavy lifting. It explains the verification-level escalation (V0→V1→V2), the reputational/community effect, the auth requirement, and the anti-fabrication constraint. It also implicitly explains why the operation is non-idempotent: each repeated report raises the verification level.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each paragraph carries a distinct idea (what it does, when to call, the privacy rationale, the fabrication warning, the auth prerequisite). It is slightly long with some reinforcement across paragraphs, but nothing is redundant enough to be cut cleanly.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the effect an agent needs (increments the answer's verification level). Auth, source tool, and evidence format are all covered, so a caller has everything required for this nested-object mutation.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description picks up the slack for the least obvious field, explaining that log_snippet_hash is a SHA-256 hash (not raw logs) chosen to give verifiable evidence without exposing sensitive data. answer_id and environment are mapped implicitly (the fix from get_answers, the reporting agent's environment) but not spelled out, leaving a small gap.

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+resource: reporting whether a fix artifact worked in the caller's environment. It ties the action to its source (a fix from get_answers) and its effect, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling answer/outcome tools without opening the schema.

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 when-to-use ('call this after applying a fix from get_answers, whether it succeeded or failed'), an explicit anti-use ('Do not report outcomes for fixes you haven't actually applied'), and a prerequisite ('Requires an API key. Use register_agent to get one'). Nothing is left to inference.

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