guardrail_record_outcome

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It identifies the action as recording for an audit trail but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing records, whether it requires a prior guardrail_check, what happens if request_id is invalid, or any error behavior. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete. It explains the audit trail purpose but omits important context such as whether the outcome is appended, overwritten, or how errors are handled. For a straightforward logging tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'outcome' is success/error, matching the enum, and 'previously-checked action' implies request_id is an ID from a prior check. However, it does not explicitly define request_id's format or source, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the verb 'Record' and the specific resource 'real-world outcome (success/error) of a previously-checked action, for the audit trail.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on post-check outcome logging rather than checking or history retrieval.

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 'previously-checked action' provides clear context that this tool is for logging outcomes after a guardrail check has occurred, implying a temporal relationship with guardrail_check. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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