set_thesis_outcome

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it overwrites an automatically computed outcome rather than appending, and the value feeds calibration. It does not say whether the write is idempotent, what happens if the thesis_id is unknown, or whether the previous outcome is recoverable.

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and the override/calibration qualification in an efficient parenthetical. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with three parameters, one undocumented field, and a mutation that silently replaces an automatic result, the description omits prerequisites (must the thesis already exist?) and any note about the effect on downstream calibration or scorecard artifacts.

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 only 33%: 'note' is documented ('Why') and outcome's enum lives in $defs, but thesis_id has no description anywhere. The description clarifies the meaning of the outcome values in context (a verdict used for calibration, not a status flag), which is more than the enum alone conveys, but it leaves thesis_id unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource (record a thesis outcome) and enumerates the domain values (right, wrong, unclear), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like record_thesis, update_thesis or track_thesis. It lacks an explicit contrast with those sibling tools, but the action itself is 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 parenthetical 'overrides the automatic outcome; used for calibration' implies the situation to use it (manual correction of a system-derived verdict), but it never states when not to use it or which alternative to pick for adjusting a thesis's content versus its outcome.

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