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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds useful behavioral detail: not_applicable_on marks a check N/A and stops it counting toward coverage, and the reference is not editable. No contradiction with 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then key behavioral constraints. No filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 seven parameters, full schema descriptions, and a destructive annotation, the description supplies the missing usage context and key side effects. No output schema exists, but for an update operation the returned value is not critical to invoking it correctly.

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. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the effect of not_applicable_on on coverage and by stating that ref is a position rather than an editable value.

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 ('Correct') on a specific resource ('a check') and clarifies the scope: wording or platform applicability. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like add_check, get_check, and list_checks without opening the 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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: use when a step is wrong or misleading, or when a check does not belong on a platform. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenarios are clear.

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