record_decision_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior (does not modify the original forecast), which adds value. However, it does not mention idempotency, whether an existing outcome can be overwritten, or what happens if the decision_id is not found.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant phrases or unnecessary detail.

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 has a nested object parameter and no annotations, yet the description is sparse. It does not explain what should go inside the outcome object, whether multiple outcomes can be attached to the same recommendation, or any constraints. While an output schema exists, the input semantics remain underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides minimal semantic hint for 'outcome' as 'observed outcome', but does not describe the expected structure of the outcome object or the meaning of decision_id beyond its name. This is insufficient for low schema coverage.

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 ('attach') and identifies a clear resource ('observed outcome to a prior recommendation'). It also adds a distinguishing qualifier ('without rewriting its forecast') that separates it from sibling tools like record_decision_action.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: after a recommendation has been made and an observed outcome is available. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it appropriately.

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