capture_outcomeValidate and store a task-local outcome draft in your learning loop so it can be reviewed later, without promoting it to a verified solution.
Validates and stores a task-local outcome draft without promotion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes | ||
| projects_root | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does communicate key facts: the tool validates, stores, and avoids promotion. However, it omits details like whether existing drafts are overwritten, whether failures are partial, or what side effects validation has.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Validates and stores' is placed at the start, and 'without promotion' is a high-value differentiator. Every word earns its place.
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 four parameters, three required, a nested draft object, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. An agent would not know how to populate the draft or what output_path represents. The output schema may cover return values, but the input semantics and validation behavior remain underspecified.
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 must compensate for the bare parameter names. It does not explain project, draft, output_path, or projects_root. The phrase 'task-local outcome draft' loosely maps to draft/project, but the critical output_path and projects_root roles are 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?
The description gives a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Validates and stores a task-local outcome draft.' The phrase 'without promotion' sharply separates it from sibling tools like register_solution, making the distinctive scope clear.
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 implies its use case—capturing a draft that should not be promoted to a broader state—but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over register_solution or other siblings. The distinction is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.