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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false and readOnly=false; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing that the operation preserves the claim ID and revision history (i.e. it versions rather than overwrites) and requires a prior revision read for concurrency safety. Return format is covered by the output schema.

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 short sentences, the core action stated first and the prerequisite second. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 covering the return value and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: mutation scope, ID/revision preservation, and the read-before-write requirement. A brief note on action choice (correct vs reject vs retract) would make it fully complete.

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 71%, with expected_revision, reason, claim_id, team_id and validity all self-documented in the schema. The description's 'read its current revision first' usefully explains the expected_revision workflow, but it says nothing about action enum semantics or when validity/value are appropriate. 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+resource ('save an explicit user correction, rejection or retraction of a cited person claim') and adds the scope constraint that ID and revision history are preserved. It is clearly distinct from generic siblings like memory_save or update_person, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate against them explicitly.

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 real workflow prerequisite: 'Read its current revision first,' which tells the agent to fetch expected_revision before calling. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over memory_save/update_person or when not to use it.

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