record_drift_outcome

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses a key side effect: outcomes feed back into priority-scoring weights via the knowledge graph. It also notes constraints on parameters (projectPath must match detection, driftId anchors outcome). However, it does not mention idempotency or behavior on duplicate driftId.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first describes the primary action and valid outcomes, the second explains the downstream impact. No filler or redundancy, and the critical information is 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers purpose, side effects, and parameter constraints. It could mention what happens if driftId is not found (e.g., error) or if outcome is overwritten, but these are minor gaps for a simple record tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why projectPath must match (so outcome lands on correct project node) and why driftId is required (to attribute outcome to a factor snapshot). This contextual information goes beyond the schema's straightforward descriptions.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'host's judgment for a previously-detected drift'. It specifies the three outcome values, making the purpose unambiguous. The tool is distinct from all sibling tools listed, which cover analysis, deployment, memory, and documentation tasks.

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 indicates that this tool is used after drift detection to record a judgment. It implies a prerequisite (previously-detected drift) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools. Since no sibling performs this specific function, the lack of alternatives is acceptable.

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