submit_outcome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the API key requirement ('Requires an API key (INVOKIT_API_KEY environment variable)') and notes that outcomes improve quality scores. However, it lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or any failure behavior, which is still relevant for a write operation.

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 efficiently structured, beginning with the one-line purpose, followed by workflow context, API key note, and an Args list. No sentence is wasted, though the Args section is somewhat lengthy. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and usage context.

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 feedback submission tool, the description covers purpose, workflow, API key, and all parameters explicitly. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It could mention what happens on success or failure, or if submissions are idempotent, but for this simple tool the coverage is adequate.

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 does so thoroughly via an Args section that explains every parameter: slug and invocation_id are tied to invoke_tool, agent_id has a default and custom usage, semantic_accuracy and output_usefulness have explicit rating scales, task_completion is a boolean, and feedback_text has a max length. This goes well beyond the schema properties.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit quality feedback after invoking a tool.' It also contextually places this in a workflow ('search → invoke → report outcome'), making the tool's role unmistakable. No sibling tool does this, so it is clearly distinguished.

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 explicitly ties usage to the feedback loop ('This closes the feedback loop: search → invoke → report outcome') and indicates it is a post-invocation action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusion criteria, but the workflow context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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