record_usageLog resolved consent outcomes for behavioral instruction presets, confirming, rejecting, or overriding each pending confirmation to update the global memory trust state.
回报对话中完成的预设确认结果（pending_confirmation 的逐条答复、backlog 补确认、纠正流程的推翻）。confirmed=用户确认沿用；rejected=用户拒绝；overridden=应用后被用户当场推翻。Report per-preset consent outcomes resolved in conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outcomes | Yes | 各预设的确认结果 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It explains three enum values (confirmed, rejected, overridden) but omits unattended_applied and unattended_skipped, which are in the schema. It also fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, or response behavior, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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 concise, front-loading the purpose and defining key result values. It mixes Chinese and English, but that is not a major flaw. It could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately sized.
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?
The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description leaves out two enum values and domain-specific terms (pending_confirmation, backlog, correction flow) without explanation. It also does not cover when to use it relative to alternatives, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of three result values and the context of pending_confirmation, but it does not explain the two unattended enum values, leaving the parameter semantics incomplete.
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 reports per-preset consent outcomes resolved in conversation, with a specific verb ('report') and resource. The Chinese text adds precision by specifying '预设确认结果' (preset confirmation results) and enumerating three result semantics, making it distinct from sibling memory-management tools.
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 clear context: it is used when reporting confirmation results from conversation, including pending_confirmation replies, backlog re-confirmation, and overrides. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tools' focus on memory operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.