correct_memory

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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: corrections are revision-checked and stale writes are rejected (optimistic concurrency), and prior content is preserved in history. The history-retention note is consistent with destructiveHint=false and the verb is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. Missing only what the rejection failure looks like to the caller.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then outcome and side effect. No filler; the only thing not earning its place is the slightly redundant second clause about subsequent corrections.

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?

Covers the core correction semantics well, but for a 9-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the agent still cannot infer what attribution, occurred_at, request_key or source_* are for, or what a successful response contains.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains `id` and `expected_revision` only indirectly via "returned id and revision", and says nothing about content, reason, attribution, occurred_at, request_key, or the two source_* parameters.

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 and resource: replace an active memory with a new revision. It clearly reads as an update/correction operation rather than a create, which implicitly separates it from remember_memory, but it never names a sibling or scopes itself explicitly against forget_memory or memory_history.

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 real guidance on the correction workflow (reuse the returned id and revision, stale writers rejected), which tells the agent how to chain calls. It does not say when to choose this over remember_memory or forget_memory, nor what preconditions must hold beyond "active memory".

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