Record an application outcome

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds value by specifying that it 'appends' to history, implying a non-destructive additive behavior rather than an overwrite. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as idempotency, side effects, or permissions. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Appends an outcome') and provides a purpose clause. There is no redundant information, and every word earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing 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?

For a simple write tool with no output schema, the description gives a clear overview but leaves out details about return values, parameter specifics, and edge-case behavior. It adequately conveys the core purpose but is not fully complete for an agent to know exactly what happens after invocation or how to fully construct a valid request beyond the schema. It is a minimum viable description with clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not. The description mentions 'outcome' and 'track, tier, and company' but never explicitly ties these to the parameters (applicationId, status, detail). The enum values are self-explanatory, but the role of 'detail' and the exact semantics of each status are not clarified. This is a significant gap.

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 a specific action ('Appends an outcome') and a specific resource ('an application's history'). It also provides the purpose (measuring conversion rates per track, tier, and company), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_submission. The verb and resource are concrete and unambiguous.

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 description implies the appropriate usage context by explaining when this tool is relevant: when an outcome needs to be appended for conversion tracking. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the stated purpose gives clear context for when to invoke it. The lack of explicit exclusions keeps it slightly below a 5.

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