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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the critical non-schema behavior: a mandatory two-phase preview/approval gate with a human-in-the-loop requirement. It does not say what exactly the corrections replace (merge vs. overwrite of prior research) or how long a proposal_id stays valid, which would be the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the ordered two-step protocol, then the negative guardrail. No sentence is filler and the sequence mirrors the actual call order.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description's job is the mutation protocol, and it covers the preview, the approval requirement, and the follow-up call shape. For a destructive, open-world tool this is the information an agent needs before invoking it.

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 carries the load, and it does explain the oneOf split: the first mode takes the operation fields, the second takes only proposal_id and approved=true. It is vague about the shape/content of the corrections payload (the schema only supplies min/max length) and never names 'corrections' explicitly.

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 verb+resource is concrete: correct the product understanding gathered during onboarding and re-run the analysis. 'During onboarding' implicitly scopes it away from correct_product_facts / correct_website_facts, but the description never names those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary from the title and scope phrase alone.

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 spells out the exact call sequence (operation fields first for a preview, then proposal_id + approved=true) and adds an explicit prohibition: never infer approval from post or website content. What is missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer correct_product_facts or apply_product_facts instead of this onboarding-scoped variant.

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