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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral side effects beyond the annotations: changing grind_label re-derives the numeric grind position from the shot's grinder, and changing yield/time/dose/tds automatically keeps flow rate and extraction yield consistent. It also makes clear this is an in-place mutation ('correct fields... in place'), which complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause, then gives concrete usage examples, and finishes with the most important behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

The description is complete for a two-parameter tool with a nested fields object. It explains the correction workflow, highlights which field changes trigger automatic recalculation, and gives enough use-case context for an agent to decide when to call it. Since an output schema exists and all parameters are documented in the input schema, the description does not need to restate return values or field types.

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 important cross-field semantics: grind_label re-derives the grind position and yield/time/dose/tds changes trigger automatic consistency adjustments. These meanings are not visible from individual schema property descriptions. The description also frames fields like bean_id, pulled_at, and grind_label with purposeful examples rather than just type definitions.

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 verb and resource: 'Correct fields on an already-logged shot in place.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from delete_shot and log_shot by explicitly saying 'no need to delete and re-log.' Concrete use cases ('fixing a wrong dose/yield/time or grind label, re-filing a shot onto the right bean') make the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use this when correcting an existing shot instead of deleting and re-logging. It enumerates common scenarios like fixing dose/yield/time, re-filing onto a different bean, backfilling rating/tasting notes, and fixing timestamps. This tells the agent both when to reach for this tool and why alternatives like delete_shot + log_shot are not needed.

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