record_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that target_url resolves to the target's most recent pending message and that reflection_due should trigger a follow-up skill. It does not detail overwrite/duplicate behavior or error paths, but the core write behavior and response signal are adequately explained.

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?

Information is front-loaded: purpose, trigger, lookup, response behavior, then args. Each sentence carries operational value and the Args block is scannable; there is no filler.

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?

Covers the key invocation decisions: when to call, which identifier to use, accepted outcome values, and what to do when reflection_due appears in the response. It does not spell out the constraint that at least one identifier must be supplied or what happens when target_url matches nothing, but the clear lookup description and output schema make it reasonably complete.

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%, so the description fully compensates with an Args section that explains all five parameters, including preferred vs alternative lookup, enum values with parenthetical meanings, and the optional nature of notes. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description states a clear verb+resource: 'Record what happened to a sent outreach message.' The trigger phrase 'replied, booked a meeting, or went quiet' and the reference to log_outreach() in the args distinguish it from sibling logging/listing tools.

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?

Explicit call condition is given: 'Call when the user says the target replied, booked a meeting, or went quiet.' It also tells the agent to prefer outreach_id over target_url. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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