Add Principal Outcome Report

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent write with no destructive or open-world effect, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether a principal report can be overwritten, appended, or duplicated, despite idempotentHint=false making that ambiguity consequential.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail scored elsewhere.

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?

A four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, zero schema descriptions, and no usage context needs far more from the description than this. The agent is left guessing about parameter formats, enum semantics, and when the tool should be called.

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% and all four parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description names none of them (outcome_id, observed_outcome, outcome_class, divergence_score), so the agent gets no meaning for the enum values, the 0-1 divergence_score scale, or how the principal's view relates to the existing outcome record.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add principal's perspective to an outcome record') and ties it to a named concept, three-way divergence reporting. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_outcome_record, though the 'three-way divergence' framing is never explained, so the agent only half-understands what differentiates this side-record from the base outcome.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternative create_outcome_record. The agent cannot tell from this text whether a principal report is mandatory after every outcome or an optional addendum.

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