Report whether a recovery action worked

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses that reports feed downstream recommendations, that each attempt should be reported separately, and that contributions are rate-limited per action. It also frames the tool as telemetry, which makes the side effect of calling it clear.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and remains focused: the first sentence states exactly when to call it, and later sentences justify the telemetry value, enumerate common actions, and set rate expectations. It is longer than a minimal description, but the added sentences all carry operational guidance rather than filler.

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 telemetry tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, this description is complete: an agent knows when to call it, what to pass, what action values exist, how to avoid duplicate reports, and the rate limit. The only minor omission is an explicit alternative to report_tool_success, but that does not block correct invocation.

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 value above the schema by listing canonical action values, explaining that the fingerprint must come from check_tool_failure or report_tool_failure, and linking the action parameter to per-hour confidence accumulation. It does not duplicate parameter formats, letting the schema handle syntax.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it instructs the agent to report whether a recovery action resolved a known failure, and it ties the report to a fingerprint from check_tool_failure or report_tool_failure. This clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling failure-reporting tools: check/report_tool_failure record the failure itself, while this records the outcome of the attempted fix.

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?

It specifies the exact trigger ('After you acted on a known failure'), what to pass (the fingerprint), and common action values to report. It also sets rate and granularity guidance ('one outcome per attempt', 'at most 5 attempts per hour'), though it does not explicitly state when to prefer report_tool_success over this tool.

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