report_task_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the most important behavioral trait: reported_outcome is a self-report that is never treated as the objective outcome, which comes only from episode verification evidence. That is genuinely non-obvious semantics an agent could not get from the schema. It still does not say whether repeat reports overwrite prior ones or what permissions are required.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the one caveat that matters. No filler, though the second sentence's line-broken formatting is slightly awkward rather than harmful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the self-report caveat is well covered. However, for a 6-parameter write tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, leaving task_ref and the retrieved_ids vs consulted_lesson_ids distinction unexplained is a real gap.

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 compensate, and it partly does — it enumerates the accepted values for reported_outcome and explains that episode_id links to verification evidence. But task_ref, retrieved_ids, and note are never explained, and the distinction between consulted_lesson_ids and retrieved_ids is left unstated.

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 gives a specific verb and object pair — recording which retrieved lessons were consulted and how the task ended — which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not name either sibling (search_experience, get_episode_evidence), so it only implicitly marks itself as the write-back counterpart to those read tools.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is meant to be called at task end, after lessons have been retrieved and consulted. There is no explicit 'use this when / not when' clause and no reference to the sibling tools that produce the ids this tool consumes, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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