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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which is the notable part of this tool given it is an 'update'. The description never explains what makes it destructive — whether omitted fields are cleared, whether the previous entry is replaced atomically, or whether the logId must already exist. It adds no behavioral context beyond the one-word 'Correct'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding and the field scope immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

A destructive, non-read-only mutation on a 4-parameter schema with 25% coverage and no output schema needs more than one sentence: it should say what is replaced or preserved and what happens on an unknown logId. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is present.

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 only 25% (only takenAt is documented as ISO 8601). The description partially compensates by naming the three mutable fields (dosage, unit, time), implying they are the optional patch surface, but it never explains logId as the target identifier or whether supplying a subset of fields overwrites the rest.

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 ('correct') and resource ('intake log') with the mutable field scope in parentheses (dosage, unit, time), which distinguishes it from stackwell_log_intake and stackwell_delete_intake. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent still infers the boundary.

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?

No statement of when to correct an existing log versus re-logging, deleting, or skipping (stackwell_skip_intake / stackwell_delete_intake are available). The only requirement, a logId, appears in the schema rather than the description, so there is no usage context at all.

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