Create Outcome Record

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

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds only '(agent perspective)', which does clarify which of several outcome-recording perspectives this covers, but says nothing about required ordering, idempotency expectations, or what happens on repeat calls—context the non-idempotent hint makes valuable.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight precision.

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?

For an 8-parameter, 7-required write tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It neither explains the reporting workflow it belongs to nor clarifies any of the required inputs, leaving the agent unable to invoke this correctly from the description alone.

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% across 8 parameters (7 required), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Critical fields like divergence_score (0-1), semantic_uncertainty, outcome_class, and valid_until are left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ('Register an action outcome') and adds a differentiating qualifier ('agent perspective'). However, 'Part of three-way reporting' gestures at a scheme without naming the sibling tools that supply the other reporting perspectives, so an agent cannot cleanly tell it apart from create_intent, evaluate_intent, or complete_action.

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 explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. 'Part of three-way reporting' hints that this fits into a larger workflow but leaves the agent to infer the trigger conditions and the relationship to sibling recording tools.

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