record_outcome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It explains the semantic meaning of the two outcome values and that it records after a correction, but it does not disclose potential side effects, requirements (e.g., whether the correction capture must already exist), error behavior, or whether this is a persistent write. This is a moderate gap for a mutation tool, but the core behavior is reasonably described.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core action, the second explains the broader purpose, and the third gives a clear usage instruction. It is front-loaded and free of 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?

For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains what the tool does, what the outcomes mean, why to use it, and when to call it. It does not describe return values or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the full schema coverage, this is not a significant omission.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'heeded' and 'recurred' are defined in both the schema and the description). Therefore, no extra value is contributed here.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Record whether a correction was heeded or recurred', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also explains the two outcomes ('agent followed the advice' vs 'same error happened again') and notes it 'tracks correction effectiveness over time', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that apply corrections (e.g., correct, supersede) rather than record their 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 provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call after applying a correction to a recalled memory.' It also implies the context of correction effectiveness tracking. While it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the when-to-use instruction is clear and sufficient for this simple feedback-recording tool.

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