memory_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does by noting that logged outcomes feed Dream's next-session lessons and that the operation "needs Postgres." It also discloses the return shape. It does not discuss idempotency, permissions, or failure behavior, but for a simple logging write this is reasonable coverage.

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 no filler; the primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by downstream behavior and a concise dependency/return note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers what the tool records, why it matters, what it returns, and its Postgres dependency, while the schema covers all parameter semantics. It does not spell out preconditions such as an active episode, so for a moderate-complexity logging tool it is nearly complete but not exhaustive.

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?

All six parameters already have descriptive schema entries, so the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds no additional guidance beyond the return sample containing task and outcome. Baseline 3 applies because the coverage is 100% and the description neither harms nor enriches parameter understanding.

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 opening line, "Record a procedural outcome — what worked, failed, or was corrected," names a specific action and resource and narrows the tool's scope to procedural outcomes rather than general facts. This clearly separates it from siblings like memory_store and memory_reinforce without restating the tool name.

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 supplies clear context for when to call it: after a procedural attempt, so that "Dream synthesises signals into lessons surfaced next session" and "logging stops repeated mistakes." It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops one step short of full routing guidance.

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