record_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions persisting a snapshot and the operator_id constraint, but does not explain side effects, idempotency, or what happens to the task after recording. The absence of output schema information further limits transparency.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences with no filler. Every word adds value, and the key points are front-loaded.

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 has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and the persistence behavior of the snapshot. The operator_id constraint is helpful, but overall the description does not provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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. It adds meaning for operator_id (must match caller or be anonymous), but task_id, outcome, and note are left undefined. No allowed values for outcome are provided, which is a significant 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 action ('record') and the resource ('routed-task outcome' and 'latest task snapshot'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like agent_queue_approve or approval_queue_reject, leaving some ambiguity.

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 includes a constraint on operator_id but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agent_queue_* or approval_queue_* tools). No context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios is given.

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