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

Beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses important derived behavior: changing grind_label re-derives the numeric grind position, and changing yield/time/dose/tds automatically keeps flow rate and extraction yield consistent. This adds genuine behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first establishes what the tool does, the second gives concrete usage examples, the third explains key derived behaviors. No filler or redundancy.

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 the rich input schema, detailed field descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description provides the high-level context an agent needs: when to use it, what it can correct, and what behaviors to expect. Nothing essential is missing for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping concrete use cases to specific fields like bean_id and pulled_at, and by highlighting the automatic consistency effect for yield/time/dose/tds, which is not in the schema's field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: correcting fields on an already-logged shot in place. It distinguishes this from delete-and-re-log behavior and signals it operates on existing shots, separating it from log_shot and delete_shot.

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 use cases: fixing dose/yield/time, correcting grind label, re-filing bean_id, backfilling rating/tasting notes, and fixing pulled_at. It also provides an alternative framing ('no need to delete and re-log'), though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when not to use update_shot.

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