record_outreach

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries disclosure of side effects. It clearly explains that 'sent' flips prospect status to contacted, stamps next_outreach_after = sentAt + noResponseRecycleDays, and gates inclusion in get_outbound_targets; it also clarifies that 'failed' and 'pending_review' have distinct downstream consequences.

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 packed with necessary behavioral detail in a single coherent paragraph, with no filler or repetition. Every clause contributes either a status transition or an alternative-routing hint, and the final sentence intentionally steers the reader to the sibling when appropriate.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers all critical behavioral context: side effects, downstream target queues, recycle windows, prospect state changes, and channel-specific exceptions. This is sufficient for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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?

At 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates meaningfully by giving value-level semantics to 'status' and to the 'channel' such that form/SNS DM paths through the alternative tool. It does not explicitly describe body, subject, or prospectId in prose, but those are simpler text/integer fields and partially self-evident.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Record an outreach log entry', then defines behavioral distinctions for each status value. It distinguishes itself from record_outreach_with_inquiry by explicitly redirecting form/SNS DM submissions, which goes beyond vague purpose.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the alternative tool: 'For form / SNS DM submissions, prefer record_outreach_with_inquiry.' The status walkthrough also gives implementable guidance for choosing between sent, failed, and pending_review based on intended state transitions.

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