team_goal_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the non-obvious trait: writes are amendable and the latest record wins, so the agent knows calls are not append-only. It also says the text renders beside the goal, which hints at surface visibility. Gaps remain on permissions, whether the goal must be in a shipped state, and error behavior.

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?

One sentence of purpose followed by one sentence on amend semantics; nothing is redundant and the core action is front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 simple two-parameter write tool with no output schema, this covers action, content expectation, overwrite semantics, and where the text surfaces. The only meaningful omission is preconditions and failure modes for goal_id, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the intent of 'outcome' as a single sentence of user-facing evidence rather than a slogan, which adds modest framing beyond the schema text.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: record an outcome note tied to a shipped goal, with the key qualifier that it is 'one sentence of evidence' rendered beside the goal. This separates it from team_goal_declare and team_report in substance, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'a shipped goal' implicitly gates usage to goals already delivered, and 'Re-record to amend; latest wins' tells the agent this is safe to call repeatedly. However, there is no explicit routing against alternatives such as team_report or team_goal_declare, and no stated behavior for goals that are missing or not yet shipped.

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