Reflect Outcome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description merely states 'Record the outcome...' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the tool creates a new record, updates existing data, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not front-load critical information or earn its place with meaningful details. For 7 parameters and no annotations, the description should be more substantive.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, no sibling differentiation), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, especially compared to siblings like 'record_decision'.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of any parameters. Parameters like 'decision_id', 'session_id', 'learned', 'followups' are not described at all, leaving the agent without guidance on their semantics or usage.

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's purpose: 'Record the outcome of a previous decision or implementation.' It uses a specific verb ('Record') and identifies the resource ('outcome'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'record_decision', which may also involve recording something related to decisions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for recording outcomes after decisions or implementations, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, nor any mention of prerequisites or related tools.

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