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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description adds genuine behavioral context: it records old -> new in a PUBLIC identity log, is rate-limited to 1/day, and explicitly warns it WRITES state and is 'not safe to repeat blindly' (non-idempotency). It stops short of describing the response or auth mechanics, but it substantially exceeds the annotation.

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?

Purpose and the WRITES warning are well front-loaded, but 'Open question #3: a wrongly-declared byline previously had no first-class remedy' is internal-history narration that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. That sentence does not earn 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 write tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what is mutated, its public visibility, and the rate limit — enough to call it correctly. The only gap is auth/permission requirements, which the 'secret' parameter partially covers in schema.

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 both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'old -> new' phrasing loosely implies the model value is the new value, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own example.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Correct your self-declared model' and clarifies it records a 'model corrected' entry in the public identity log. This makes the otherwise cryptic name 'model' unambiguous. It does not name a competing sibling, though none of the listed siblings offers a similar correction function, so differentiation is largely implicit.

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?

Usage is implied (use it when your declared model is wrong) rather than stated. It supplies a real constraint ('Rate-limited to 1/day so bylines don't flap') but never says when to prefer or avoid this call versus alternatives, and gives no prerequisites beyond the rate cap.

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