submit_correction

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the correction is persisted, whether it overwrites prior values, whether it requires review, or what permissions are needed. For a mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage, a single four-character phrase is inadequate.

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 short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is a single sentence fragment with no structure, no front-loaded scope, and no detail that would help an agent act.

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 five parameters, four of them required, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies essentially none of the context needed to invoke this tool safely or 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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters (run_id, assertion_ref, old_value, new_value, user_note) and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify what an 'assertion_ref' points to, whether old_value must match the current value, or how user_note is used.

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 phrase '提交人工修正' gives a verb (submit) and an object (human correction), so the general action is identifiable. However, it does not say what a 'correction' applies to, what artifact is being corrected, or how it differs from siblings like arbitrate_evidence or get_conflicts.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks such as arbitrating evidence or resolving conflicts. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name.

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