Record whether a reused procedure worked. Failures raise its fail count and demote it, so the store self-corrects instead of keeping a bad fix.
Record whether a recalled procedure worked when reused. worked=false raises its fail count and demotes it, so the store self-corrects instead of ossifying on a bad fix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Procedure id from mind_recall | |
| worked | Yes | Did the fix work this time |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real side effect: worked=false increments a fail count and demotes the procedure, and the stated rationale (self-correction instead of ossification) explains why. It omits what worked=true does, idempotency, and whether an unknown id errors.
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?
Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the rationale second; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral consequence, but it leaves gaps on the success path (what worked=true changes) and failure/error behavior.
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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of the worked flag's values (demotion on false), which is not encoded in the parameter description.
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 names a specific verb (record) and resource (whether a recalled procedure worked when reused), which is more precise than the bare tool name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby sibling mind_outcome, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.
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 rather than stated: the agent can infer this is called after mind_recall and a reuse attempt, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. mind_outcome) to route between.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.