Report whether a recalled fix worked

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

Annotations only say non-readonly/non-idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds the meaningful side effects: it 'Updates the record's confidence, which drives future ranking' and appends failed notes to the record's 'avoid-list'. This tells the agent the tool mutates ranking state and memory, beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the triggering context ('After applying a fix from `recall`') before mechanics. No filler; the 'Feedback loop' label and side-effect/avoid-list details all earn their place.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to call, side effects, and parameter behavior. Nothing critical is missing; return-value details are the only gap and are not essential for correct invocation.

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 documents `id` and `note`, but `worked` has no description. The tool description fills the gap by defining it as 'whether it worked' and clarifies `note`'s conditional use ('If it failed... avoid-list'). With 67% schema coverage and the description covering the remaining param plus the conditional behavior, it adds real semantic value.

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 and resource: 'report whether [a recalled fix] worked' and names its role as a 'Feedback loop' after `recall`. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like `recall` (which retrieves fixes) and `amend` (which edits records); an agent can tell what `reinforce` does without opening neighboring definitions.

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?

Explicitly frames when to call: 'After applying a fix from `recall`, report whether it worked.' It also gives conditional guidance for the failure case ('If it failed, pass a short note...'). It doesn't enumerate exclusions vs alternatives, but the trigger condition is unambiguous enough for selection.

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