neurogenesis__record_route_outcome

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real traits: append-only, hash-bound, exactly one outcome per decision, and that omitted cost/latency/energy 'remain explicitly unknown' rather than defaulting to zero. It stops short of stating what happens on a duplicate submission, whether auth or a registered compute profile is required, or whether the write is reversible.

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 three operative sentences are tight, front-loaded, and free of filler. The bracketed '[neurogenesis — developmental agents: genome -> evaluation-driven growth with safety axioms + audit ledger]' prefix is domain boilerplate that occupies prime space without helping an agent decide or invoke.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. The description supplies the uniqueness constraint and optionality semantics but leaves the majority of parameters undocumented and omits error/permission behavior, which is not enough for an agent to call it reliably.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does. It clarifies the tri-state semantics of actual_cost_usd/actual_energy_wh/actual_latency_ms ('remain explicitly unknown when omitted'), but says nothing about the required decision_id and success_score (scale? range?), request_id, or notes.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Attach one observed outcome to a Wu Wei decision' — which is far more concrete than the tool name alone. It does not, however, name the sibling that produces the decision it targets (neurogenesis__route_task) or distinguish itself from trust__record_outcome, so an agent must infer the linkage.

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?

Usage is implied (call after a routed decision to close the loop) and one hard constraint is stated: 'One append-only, hash-bound outcome is allowed per decision.' Beyond that there is no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternative such as trust__record_outcome or neurogenesis__submit_evaluation.

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