add_principal_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosure. It indicates a mutation (adding) without explaining side effects, such as whether it overwrites, requires existing records, or has any idempotency. The 'three-way divergence reporting' hint adds purpose but not behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides the purpose context, making it easy to parse.

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 four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits usage guidance, parameter details, and behavioral disclosure, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool safely and 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 coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain any parameter meanings. While a reader might infer that parameters like outcome_id and observed_outcome relate to the principal's report, the description does not explicitly map them. This leaves the agent to guess from field names and the enum for outcome_class.

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: adding a principal's perspective to an existing outcome record. The phrase 'Enables three-way divergence reporting' gives additional context that differentiates this from sibling tools like create_outcome_record, which creates the record itself.

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 usage—when you need to add a principal's perspective to an outcome record—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites like requiring an existing outcome record. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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