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

Annotations only declare a destructive, non-read-only, open-world write; the description adds substantial detail beyond that: original date and prior text/reviews are retained, current corroboration is cleared pending fresh review, corrections are capped at ten, and no credits or retrieval events are produced. That tells the agent the side effects and what is lost, which is exactly the burden a destructiveHint leaves open.

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 purpose is front-loaded and each sentence adds a distinct fact about preconditions, side effects, or limits. The telegraphic fragments ('No credits, retrievals or returning-use events. Exclude secrets.') are efficient but slightly clipped, and the retention/clearing sentence is dense enough to need a second read.

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?

For a destructive, seven-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, retention semantics, and the correction cap well. It leaves the caller without guidance on how to fill `task`, `outcome`, and `reason` (three of seven params at low schema coverage) and never tells them what the response will contain.

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 29% with seven required parameters, so the description should carry more weight. It does add real meaning for `beneficial` (false withdraws the benefit claim) and `expectedRevision` (must match the value from get_account), plus a content rule ('Exclude secrets') for the free-text fields, but it says nothing about the distinctions between `task`, `outcome`, `reason`, or `id`.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Correct your own private task report', scoping it to the caller's own report and implying a revision-checked update. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the line 'No credits, retrievals or returning-use events' implicitly separates it from record_reuse, so the distinction is inferable rather than stated.

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 a clear entry condition ('Available after finding expiry, up to ten corrections') and a prerequisite ('using its current revision from get_account'), which tells the agent exactly what to call first. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule or a direct pointer to the alternative tool for non-expired findings.

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