record_review_outcome

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and the second sentence does disclose one genuinely useful trait: command strings are persisted as inert data rather than executed, and verification status is caller-asserted rather than server-validated. That is real value beyond structured fields. However, nothing is said about persistence scope, what happens on duplicate records, whether entries are mutable or reopenable (the `reopens` parameter hints at state changes), or what the caller gets back.

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, so nothing is wasted. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity: at this size for a 14-parameter mutation tool, the terseness costs more than it saves.

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?

Fourteen parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description is the sole carrier of context, and two sentences cannot cover it. Key facts an agent needs — accepted `kind` values, whether `scope: session` versus other scopes changes behavior, what `reopens` does, and whether evidence_files must exist on disk — are all absent.

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 14 parameters, including four required ones (kind, text, source, evidence_files), so the description is the only possible source of meaning — and it explains none of them. "Commands" loosely gestures at the `command` field and "verification is caller-reported" at `status`/`result`, but `kind`, `scope`, `reopens`, `related_id`, `external_id`, and `conditions` remain entirely opaque.

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 verb ("Record") and a loosely named resource ("review/failure evidence"), but the resource doesn't map cleanly to the tool name's "review outcome" and the 14-parameter surface suggests a much broader record type than "evidence." An agent cannot tell from this text whether the tool logs a review verdict, a test failure, or both, nor how it differs from siblings like record_decision or check_decisions.

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 mention of the obviously related siblings (get_review_memory, record_decision, check_decisions) that an agent would need to choose between. The only implicit cue is that this is a write path versus the read-oriented get_review_memory, which the agent must infer entirely on its own.

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