mind_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses idempotency on (memory_id, signal_type, source), downstream external_signal_score effects, and procedure counter bumps. However, it omits permissions, error behavior, and the exact response shape, so it is rich but not fully complete.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then moves into idempotency and side effects, which is a sensible structure. It is somewhat dense with internal references such as '§3 Mechanism 2 doubt-window guardrail' and a version prefix, but most sentences carry actionable information.

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?

For a mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, idempotency, scoring impact, and procedure integration. It still leaves gaps around return values and error conditions, but it is largely complete 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by defining the idempotency key as (memory_id, signal_type, source), explaining that memory_id may target any memory or a procedure, and instructing the caller to pass the procedure id returned by mind_learn.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record a typed external-signal outcome on any memory (not only procedures).' It explicitly distinguishes this tool from procedure-specific alternatives and enumerates the signal types, so an agent can identify scope and route correctly.

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?

It gives explicit triggers: 'Use this when a test passed/failed, code compiled, a user explicitly confirmed/denied a fact, or a citing memory referenced this one.' It also names the condition for avoiding a separate mind_procedure_outcome call when the target is a procedure and the signal is test_passed or code_compiled.

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