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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious derived-value behavior: grind_label re-derives the numeric grind position and yield/time/dose/tds keep flow rate and extraction yield consistent automatically. It stops short of permission or failure-mode disclosure, so not a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the reason to prefer it over delete/re-log, then the concrete use cases and side effects. 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description covers the key gap: the in-place correction semantics and the automatic re-derivation side effects. It fully equips an agent to call it, with only minor omission of error/permission behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents bean_id, bag_id, tasted, data_confidence, etc. The description's parameter references (dose/yield/time, grind_label, bean_id, pulled_at) largely restate schema text, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Correct fields on an already-logged shot in place') and immediately distinguishes itself from delete_shot/log_shot by noting no delete/re-log is needed. An agent can tell it apart from the sibling delete_shot and log_shot without opening a schema.

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 a concrete list of when-to-use cases (fix wrong dose/yield/time, re-file onto a bean, backfill rating/notes, fix timestamp) and rules out the delete-and-re-log alternative. It does not explicitly name delete_shot or log_shot as alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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