hebbrix_report_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden and does so well: it defines the standard success/reward path, requires custom metrics to be pre-defined via the Outcome Memory REST API, explains early vs settled signals, explains correction replaces evidence without double-counting, and discloses idempotency conflict behavior. This goes well beyond a bare 'report' statement.

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-loaded with the purpose, and each additional sentence earns its place by explaining the 30-second path, metrics requirement, and special flags. No 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 an 8-parameter reporting tool with no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers the workflow, key parameter semantics, and idempotency/correction safeguards. The output schema covers return values, and the required decision_id is obvious. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the confidence parameter or explicitly contrasting with sibling tools, but is still highly usable.

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%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It explains success/reward, metrics, final, correction, and idempotency_key, covering most inputs. It does not explain the confidence parameter or decision_id (though decision_id is required and self-explanatory), 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Report the REAL delayed result of a prior hebbrix_choose_action.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like hebbrix_choose_action (which chooses/asks) and hebbrix_mark_used (which marks used), and anchors its role in the workflow.

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 states the tool is for reporting delayed results of a prior hebbrix_choose_action, and provides conditional guidance for final=false, correction=true, and idempotency_key conflicts. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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