update_outreach_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does describe side effects (stamping next_outreach_after, dropping the prospect from get_outbound_targets, refunding quota, flipping status, confirming quota), but it omits key behaviors such as idempotency, error conditions, and whether changes are reversible. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single dense paragraph. It front-loads the core action and then provides necessary detail about consequences. It is not excessively long, but could be broken into bullet points for readability. Still, each sentence serves a purpose and there is no wasted text.

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 tool's complexity (multiple side effects, state transitions), the description covers most critical points: allowed transitions, effects of each status, and the timing of next_outreach_after. It does not mention error handling or idempotency, and there is no output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds semantic context by linking the status parameter to its consequences ('sent' flips prospect status, 'failed' refunds quota), which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions. It doesn't add syntax details, but the schema is thorough.

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: to resolve a 'pre_send' outreach log row into one of two terminal states ('sent' or 'failed'). It names the exact source tool (record_outreach_with_inquiry) and the specific state transition, distinguishing it from sibling tools like record_outreach and update_prospect_status.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it explains that this tool follows record_outreach_with_inquiry)Skip_prospect, and it clarifies that only the 'pre_send' → terminal transition is accepted. It also outlines the effects of each status choice, giving clear when-to-use context versus alternatives.

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