report_outcome

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, which are neutral. The description adds that the call 'improves fix_success_rate and confidence' and 'helps improve the database,' indicating a write side effect. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, authentication needs, or rate limits. With annotations present and not contradicted, the description adds moderate value beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains when to call and why, and the third lists the accepted parameters. No filler or redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simplicity, no output schema, and a nested object parameter (environment), the description covers the when and what adequately. It does not explain return values, but for a feedback submission tool this is less critical. It could mention that repeated reports may overwrite or update existing records, but the overall context is sufficient 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 all parameters have meaningful descriptions. The description restates the three key parameters (error_id, workaround_action, success) but does not add much depth beyond that. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description's contribution is marginal but not redundant.

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 specific action: 'Report whether a workaround from deadends.dev worked or failed.' It identifies the resource (workaround outcome) and the verb (report), distinguishing it from the sibling lookup/list tools which are all read-only. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call this AFTER applying a workaround' and explains why (to improve the database and fix_success_rate). While it does not name alternatives, the sibling tools are all read-oriented, making it clear this is the only feedback/reporting tool. The context is sufficient for correct usage.

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