fix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses both update (replacement) and deletion behaviors with concrete examples, and clarifies the required 'id' parameter. It doesn't mention permanence of deletion or error handling, but covers the essential operational behavior.

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 description is three sentences with a clear example, no fluff, and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence earns its place, efficiently conveying purpose, usage, and mechanics.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and how to update/delete. It lacks explicit mention of return values or edge cases like missing IDs, but is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing JSON examples and explaining the relationship between 'correction' (update) and omitting it (delete). This gives deeper semantic meaning than the bare schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool 'correct or delete' a stored entry, using specific verbs and a clear resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on modifying existing entries, referencing IDs from retrieval tools like brief/recall/gotchas/conventions.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'When a stored entry is wrong or outdated.' It also mentions that IDs appear in brief/recall/gotchas/conventions results, implying this is used after retrieving entries. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context of sibling learning tools makes the distinction clear.

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