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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (write but not destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new operational context not present in the annotations: a $0.10 cost, an API key requirement, and the idempotency purpose of request_id. It does not mention reversibility (undo_event_fact_correction exists) or side effects on the saved answer, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three telegraphic sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite, retry hint, and cost/auth note. Every sentence carries information, though the phrasing is clipped enough that minor clarifications are traded away for brevity.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the mutation's prerequisite, idempotency, cost, and auth. For a 6-parameter mutation it could still say more about which parameters identify the target fact and about reversibility, so it is complete but not exhaustive.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry more weight, and it partly does by explaining request_id as the retry-safety/idempotency handle and implying value is the correction payload. However, message_id, source_ref, and action semantics (when to pick 'correct' vs 'not_true_anymore') are left entirely to the schema, leaving a real gap.

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 pair ('Correct or dispute') on a specific resource ('an event fact from a saved answer'), which distinguishes it from sibling writers like correct_memory_atom and the read-only get_event_fact_source. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

'Inspect its source first' gives a concrete prerequisite step (pointing the agent at the source-inspection flow), and 'Supply request_id for safe retries' gives a conditional instruction for the retry case. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., undo_event_fact_correction for reversal), so it stops short of a 5.

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