Report what actually happened

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'confidence moves' and 'audit trail', which suggests mutation, but does not state whether the action is reversible, what happens on conflicting outcomes, or any rate limits or permissions required. This is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 two sentences with clear, imperative language and front-loaded purpose. It efficiently covers outcome, audit, and handoff without excess. Could be slightly more structured but is mostly effective.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return values or confirmation behavior, which it does not. With 5 parameters including nested objects, it omits details on how 'refs' defaults work and what the audit trail returns. Adequate but not complete for complex interactions.

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 40%, and the description adds value by explaining 'outcome_ref' as an external reference and mentioning 'handoff_id' for closing packets. However, it does not clarify defaults for 'refs' or constraints like 'version' minimum beyond schema. Baseline adjusted for partial coverage.

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 clearly states the tool reports success or failure against records, using verbs like 'report' and 'close the loop'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' (likely creation) and 'history' (likely retrieval) by emphasizing outcome tracking and audit trails.

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?

The description implies use when finalizing a decision, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings like 'handoff' or 'resume'. It mentions passing 'handoff_id' but no exclusions or prerequisites.

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