apply_skill_outcome

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions the reinforcement loop and auto-archive behavior. However, it references a parameter (do_not_revert) that is not present in the input schema, which is misleading. No mention of return value or side effects. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so description adds some value but has a significant inconsistency.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently conveys key behavioral points. Minor improvement could be structuring parameter details, but overall it is well-sized.

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 tool is a simple mutation (2 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks details on return behavior and confirmation. It hints at state changes (resetting counters, archiving) but does not fully specify the effects. The missing do_not_revert parameter further reduces completeness. It is adequate 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of the two parameters (skill_id and success). It implicitly references them but provides no details on expected format, values, or behavior. With only 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a critical 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 the tool's purpose: manually recording a skill outcome (success/failure). It specifies the verb 'record' and resource 'outcome for a skill', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is a manual override to the automatic git-derived outcomes.

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 explains when to use the tool: as a manual override for the automatic outcome signal. It describes the reinforcement loop behavior (resetting consecutive_failures, auto-archiving at 5 failures) which helps the agent decide context. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use or compare with alternatives among siblings.

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