record_tool_outcome

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

Given no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: first call creates a record, subsequent calls append to a rolling window, and a 'conflict' error on concurrent writer mismatch. It lacks mention of permissions or side effects, but for a recording tool, this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose and version. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers behavioral aspects well but lacks parameter guidance and does not explain the rolling window or conflict resolution in sufficient detail. It is minimally complete but has noticeable gaps.

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 description provides no information about parameters beyond what the input schema offers. Schema description coverage is 50%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the purpose or constraints of each parameter, such as the required fields or the condition for errorMessage.

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 it records a single tool-call outcome and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling observer tools by noting it bypasses ToolCallObserver. The verb 'record' and resource 'tool-call outcome' are specific, and the reference to versioning adds context.

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 indicates this tool is for directly recording outcomes without going through the observer, implying use cases where direct recording is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the sibling observer tools are implied as alternatives.

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