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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates the action is a write (recording) and that it prevents future repeat questions, but it does not describe side effects, such as whether an existing fix for the same key is overwritten, whether the fix is immediately active, or any authorization/error conditions. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose, but it includes a redundant final 'Record.' that adds no information. Removing that tail would make it tight. The structure is acceptable but not optimal due to the unnecessary word.

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?

Given 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not sufficiently cover operational context. It states the purpose and names a prerequisite, but omits behavior on duplicates, idempotency, or success/error outcomes. An agent calling this tool would need external knowledge about persistence and edge cases, which is a notable gap for a mutating tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds only 'Named person required,' which merely reinforces the schema's existing note that taught_by is 'The named person recording this fix.' With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; extra meaning is not provided.

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 states a specific action ('Record a person's correction') and the intended outcome ('so nobody is asked the same thing twice'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like restore_fix or what_it_caught, so it doesn't fully maximize distinguishability, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies a usage context (when a person provides a correction that should be persisted for future reference) and states a prerequisite ('Named person required'). However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as restore_fix or recall_live_facts, nor does it mention any exclusions. This is adequate but not explicit.

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