record_outcome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a write operation. It does not say whether recording an outcome overwrites a prior entry for the same month, what permissions are required, or whether the metric fields are mandatory alongside a verdict.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is recorded before the enum constraint. Nothing is wasted, though for a 7-parameter write tool the terseness edges into under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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?

With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the enum and the month checkpoints. An agent still lacks the meaning of metric_code/metric_value, the units, and the write semantics needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and there are 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does partially: the allowed values IMPROVED|NO_CHANGE|WORSENED|INCONCLUSIVE are supplied for `result` even though the schema declares it as an unconstrained string, and '3·6·12·24개월' effectively documents the valid `month` values. The remaining parameters (case_id, action_id, metric_code, metric_value, note) are left undocumented.

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 (기록합니다 / records) and a precise resource: the 3/6/12/24-month outcomes of an improvement action, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling record_review. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is used after an improvement action has run long enough to have a 3/6/12/24-month checkpoint, but it never states when to call it vs. record_review, whether the action/case must pre-exist, or what to do at each interval. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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