memory_outcome

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Postgres dependency, the polarity inference behavior ('usually omit (inferred)'), and the downstream effect on Dream. It does not cover failure modes or auth, but it adequately explains the core behavioral traits for a recording tool.

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 tightly organized: a one-sentence purpose, a rationale, a structured Args list, and a Returns line. Each sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to scan. It avoids redundant explanations while covering necessary detail.

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 6-parameter complexity and zero annotations, the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, return value shape, and the Postgres requirement. The output schema is also reflected in the Returns section, making the tool self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the Args section explains every parameter with concrete examples and semantics. It defines the outcome enum, clarifies polarity as optional and inferred, and explains 'about' aids traversal. This fully compensates for the bare schema and adds meaning well beyond the field names.

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 and resource: 'Record a procedural outcome — what worked, failed, or was corrected.' This immediately distinguishes the tool from generic store/set tools by focusing on outcome logging. The example 'deploy engine to host' further clarifies the intended scope.

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 provides clear context: use this to log procedural outcomes so that 'Dream synthesises signals into lessons surfaced next session' and 'logging stops repeated mistakes.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the purpose is well-scoped enough that an agent can infer when it is appropriate compared to sibling memory tools.

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