record_outcome

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'feeds calibration' but does not disclose whether the action updates an existing application, is irreversible, or has side effects. The lack of detail on mutability or data handling 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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the crucial enumeration of outcome values. Every word earns its place, with no irrelevant information.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description does not address when in the process to call this tool, what state the application must be in, or how it interacts with other application-related tools. It is minimal and leaves significant contextual gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'outcome' parameter by listing allowed values, but provides no explanation for 'application_id' or 'notes'. Parameters remain partially undocumented, leaving uncertainty about their semantics.

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 action ('Record what happened') and enumerates the specific outcome values it accepts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'record_application' or 'report_apply_progress'. The mention of feeding calibration adds context about its role.

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 implies usage when an outcome is known and needs to be recorded, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'feeds calibration' note gives context but not clear usage guidance.

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