memo_outcome_record

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, and the description elaborates on the mechanism: 'Idempotent per idempotency_key,' explaining that retries replay the stored outcome and reusing the key with a different payload is rejected. This adds useful detail beyond the annotation, though no other behavioral traits (e.g., side effects beyond stat updates) are disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by key context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (4 required) and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and idempotency. The mention of procedure promotion provides necessary context. It does not explain the output, but the schema covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description only adds context about idempotency_key's role in safety, but does not elaborate on other parameters like actor_id or artifacts. Thus, it adds marginal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('record') and the resource ('whether recalled memories helped a task succeed'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning its role as the signal for procedure promotion, setting it apart from related tools like memo_procedure_promote.

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 usage after recalling memories for a task, stating it 'feeds success/failure back into each cited memory's outcome stats.' While it does not explicitly list when not to use it, the context is clear. It would benefit from an explicit note that this is for outcome tracking, not for initial memory creation.

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