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

Beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations, it discloses that edits fail with conflict on settled decisions, fail on superseded/retracted entries, that facet remains editable post-settlement, that null clears a prediction, and that a `needs_confirmation` envelope may be returned.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the in-place correction and field list before constraints. Every clause carries information, though the prediction-parenthetical is tightly packed and slightly heavy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers what can be changed, what cannot, the conflict/confirmation behaviors, and id sourcing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it maps friendly names to fields (title→summary, body→rationale), clarifies that nulling prediction clears the expectation, and notes facet editability after settlement. It stops short of explaining workspace/approvalId beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Corrects an entry in place') and enumerates the exact editable fields (summary, rationale, prediction, facet). It clearly differentiates from siblings like ledger_entries_settle, ledger_entries_retract, and ledger_entries_create by framing itself as in-place correction only.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('fix a typo, swapped fields, or a misrecorded detail'), explicit exclusions ('Never edits kind or lesson', fails on settled/superseded/retracted), and it routes the agent to ledger_entries_list for ids. When-not conditions and failure modes are fully spelled out.

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