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

Annotations only say it is a non-idempotent, open-world write; the description adds the critical behavior that the server verifies the quote against the live page and returns a tri-state outcome (applied, held for a maintainer, or rejected with a reason). That outcome model is non-obvious and would change how an agent retries or reports, and it is not derivable from any structured field.

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?

Front-loads the action and scope in the first clause, then moves through field/value/quote semantics to the outcome, one idea per sentence. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return semantics (applied / held / rejected with reason), the unit conventions for `value`, the year conditionality, and the source-verification requirement. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the answer without guessing.

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 0%, so the description must carry every parameter, and it does: field as a column name from `describe`, value with per-column forms and units (gain_m in metres, dates yyyy-mm-dd, start_time HH:MM 24h, price_usd numeric), quote as verbatim source text that must display the value, and the conditional meaning of year.

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 ('send a value'), a tightly bounded resource ('one field of one race'), and the purpose (correction or a value the index is missing). 'One field of one race' cleanly separates it from propose_race, which would create a whole race entry rather than patch a single column.

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 concrete preconditions: `field` must come from `describe`, `quote` must be copied verbatim from `source_url` and must show the value, and `year` is the edition year for date/start time/price/aid stations/drop bags/runners. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over report_problem for a data problem, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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