record_edit_outcome

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes the action as recording an outcome with specific parameters. Discloses the possible outcome values. No hidden side effects mentioned, but it's a simple logging action.

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?

Very concise: one line for purpose, one line for signal strength, then bullet-like args. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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 presence of siblings like 'record_outcome', this description clearly specializes. It includes args and context about signal strength. An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. Slightly could add more about when to prefer this over 'record_outcome'.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains that 'request_id' corresponds to trace_id from optimize_context, lists the three possible values for 'outcome' (schema has 0% enum coverage), and clarifies 'files_modified' as number of files touched.

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?

Clear verb 'record' and specific resource 'whether the user accepted, reverted, or retried an AI edit'. Distinguishes from generic 'record_outcome' sibling by specifying it's about AI edits.

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?

States that this is a strong signal of user behavior indicating code success, implying when to use. Does not explicitly say when not to, but provides clear context compared to siblings like 'record_outcome'.

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