remember_code_outcome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the one-shot nature and that it modifies synaptic weights (mutation), and maps success/failure to reward/punishment. But it omits whether this is irreversible, what happens on repeated calls, or any side effects beyond weight changes. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it adds some behavioral context but not enough to fully guide safe use.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. Allowed use of parentheses is efficient and does not obscure meaning.

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 mutates memory with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description lacks crucial details: how the reward/punishment affects future behavior, whether it can be undone, and what the return value is. Given the complexity of synaptic weight updates and the absence of structured behavioral data, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full implications.

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 parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema. The description only clarifies the effect of outcome ('success' rewards, 'failure' punishes), which slightly reinforces the schema but adds little since the schema already states this. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: applies reward/punishment to Mushroom Body synaptic weights. It clearly describes the core action and distinguishes itself from siblings like query_associative_memory or inspect_memory_state. However, 'Mushroom Body' is jargon that may be opaque, and it doesn't explicitly say it remembers code outcomes, which is the tool's name. Still, the action is clear.

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?

Implies usage when a test passes or fails, but doesn't state when to call this vs. alternatives like check_code_reflex or query_associative_memory. No explicit when-not or prerequisites. The outcome parameter ties to tests, but the description does not guide the agent on timing relative to other memory tools.

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