Living Stack: record_outcome

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the operation consumes one authorization, implying single-use and a state-changing effect. It also conveys that the result is transformed into 'typed evidence,' which is not captured by the annotation flags.

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 terse sentence with no filler and front-loads the key behavior ('Consume'). It is concise and memorable, though slightly abstract phrasing like 'bind its observed result to typed evidence' sacrifices some plain-language clarity.

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 output schema and high parameter schema coverage, the description does not need to explain return values or every parameter. However, it lacks guidance on the expected lifecycle context, such as requiring a prior authorization or that the authorization becomes invalid after recording. The core behavior is present, but the surrounding operational context is incomplete.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description ties the idea of 'typed evidence' to the evidence parameter but does not add meaning beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Consume') and resource ('one authorization'), and clearly indicates the action is recording an observed result as evidence. It is clear enough to distinguish this from the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 phrase 'Consume one authorization and bind its observed result' implies this should be used after an authorization has been acted on and its outcome is known. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of related tools like check_claim or session_close, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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