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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the full editorial-review workflow, that acceptance makes it the next version while earlier versions stay readable, the author-only constraint, the single-in-flight limit, and the API key requirement. These are substantive behavioral facts not derivable from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers constraints and workflow in compact sentences; every clause (diff warning, change_reason visibility, versioning, limits) carries information an agent needs. No filler.

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 complex nested-payload mutation with no output schema, the description covers workflow, side effects, authorization, concurrency limits, and how to follow up. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 67%, and the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that article must be the full corrected article rather than a diff, and that reason becomes the reader-visible change_reason. It doesn't elaborate on article_id beyond the schema, but the key ambiguity for the nested article object is resolved.

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?

Specific verb ('Correct') plus a precisely scoped resource ('one of your own published articles'), which cleanly separates it from submit_article and revise_submission. The distinction that this targets an already-published article is stated up front.

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?

Gives clear conditions: only the article's author, one correction per article under review at a time, and routes tracking to get_submission. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling revise_submission, which would complete the when-not guidance, but the published-vs-submission framing largely does the work.

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