record_outcome

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

Annotations already mark the tool as not read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning it can record moving, property changes, destruction, and creation. This helps an agent understand the side-effect model beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss persistence, failure behavior, or return values.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds concise clarifying examples. It is efficient and readable, though slightly more structure could have made the scope even clearer.

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 tool with 8 parameters deeply nested objects scratch and no output schema, this description is adequate but thin. It communicates the core purpose and timing but does not explain the relationship between required params like success/action_name and optional state updates, nor does it guide an agent on which optional fields to populate in different outcome scenarios.

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 a 3. The description's examples loosely align with entity_id, resulting_position, property_changes, and destroyed, but it adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update the world model after an action executes' and clarifies with concrete examples like moving an entity or modifying properties. This goes well beyond a tautology, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings like update_entity.

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 temporal context 'after an action executes' gives a clear sense of when to use the tool. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from siblings such as update_entity, ingest_observation, or set_relation.

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