dm_outcome

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a write ("attach"), but never says whether an existing outcome is overwritten, whether the call is idempotent, what permissions or decision state are required, or what happens if both ok and correct_choice are omitted.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, with the constraint sentence placed after the field list where it belongs. The "Input: {decision_id*, [ok], ...}" bracket notation is cryptic but compact; the main waste is the vague opening sentence.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for an unannotated mutation with a fully opaque payload the description is still thin: the plan_id reference is unexplained and inconsistent with the schema, and the overwrite/error behavior of the write is not covered.

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 the only parameter is an opaque `payload` object with additionalProperties: true, so the description's field list (decision_id required, optional ok/correct_choice/note) is genuinely valuable. However it also introduces a `plan_id` that appears nowhere in the schema, leaving the actual accepted payload shape ambiguous.

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?

"Attach the real outcome" names a mutation on an outcome record, and the field list (decision_id, ok, correct_choice, note) hints at a decision-outcome resource. But the phrasing is jargon-heavy and it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings such as do_outcome, dm_record, or do_record.

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 only usage rule is "Either ok or correct_choice may be given," which is a constraint rather than a when-to-use guideline. There is no statement of when this tool is correct versus do_outcome/dm_record, and no prerequisites or sequencing guidance.

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