report_outcome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Advance the ledger' implies state mutation, but the description says nothing about the optimistic-concurrency contract implied by expected_revision, idempotency via request_id, what happens on a revision conflict, or reversibility.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. Only slight loss for the jargon term 'recovery decision ledger' being left undefined.

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 11-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this is under-specified. Nothing explains session/revision semantics, conflict behavior, or what the caller should expect after the report is accepted.

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 100%, so all 11 parameters including the outcome enum and expected_revision are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline case.

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 concrete verb+resource pair ('record the empirical result of an experiment') plus a secondary effect ('advance the recovery decision ledger'). This clearly separates it from the read-only sibling inspect_ledger, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no routing to alternatives such as inspect_ledger. The agent must infer that this is the write-side counterpart to inspecting the ledger.

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