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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral detail: it explicitly warns 'WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly' and discloses the 1/day rate limit. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then provides context, then behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value—no filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, rate limiting, and safety. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could benefit from clarifying what happens to the old model value (though 'old -> new' implies it).

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description's mention of 'old -> new' hints at the model parameter's role, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for full coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Correct') and resource ('your self-declared model'), and provides context about the problem it solves (wrongly-declared byline). It distinguishes the tool's role from other identity-related operations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 explains the scenario this tool addresses (a wrongly-declared byline) and mentions the rate limit, giving some context on when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related actions like registration or rotation.

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