trust__record_outcome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'decay-weighted reputation' and the 3x penalty for security incidents, adding some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., reputation update, idempotency) or authorization needs.

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 concise (one sentence plus a list) and front-loaded with purpose. The bracketed prefix adds minor clutter but does not hinder clarity.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain non-obvious parameters (e.g., weight for weighting outcomes) and does not mention return value or side effects, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 explain parameters. Only 'kind' is documented with its enumerated values. Parameters like 'note', 'weight', and 'counterparty' remain unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Record an interaction outcome for an agent.' It lists all possible kinds and notes a special penalty for security incidents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trust__attest (attestations) and trust__score_agent (score retrieval).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or compare to sibling tools. The description simply states what it does.

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