correct_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not carrying the full safety burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that correction happens in place and that an audit trail with before/after values is produced. However, it does not disclose what happens when a field is not whitelisted or whether changes are reversible.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes an important behavioral detail (audit) without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured, but every word earns its place.

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?

This is a mutating tool with three required parameters, a nested object, and no schema-level descriptions. The description omits critical operational details: what determines whitelisting, what entity_type values are valid, how multiple fields are handled, and what the output schema contains. An agent would likely need to infer too much before invoking the tool safely.

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?

The schema has no descriptions and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It gives some context by saying 'whitelisted assertion fields,' which suggests what 'fields' contains, but entity_type and entity_id are only understandable from their names. No constraints, formats, or examples are provided, and 'additionalProperties: true' is left ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('Correct') and a specific resource ('whitelisted assertion fields'), and it distinguishes the operation with 'in place' and 'before/after audit.' It is clear enough that it is not a generic record creation or search tool, though the term 'whitelisted assertion fields' is domain-specific and not elaborated.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like record_fact, supersede_fact, or record_trait. The phrase 'in place' implies correcting existing records rather than creating new ones, but no alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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