paperless_set_correspondent

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

The description claims to 'set' the correspondent, implying a write operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, and the description does not clarify the actual 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the privacy tier, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the contradiction between description and annotations, and no output schema, the description does not provide complete behavioral context. It lacks information about return values, side effects, or prerequisites.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds that the name is resolved to an ID internally, which is slight additional context beyond the schema.

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 'Set the correspondent of a document by name (resolved to an ID internally)', providing a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like paperless_set_document_type.

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 mentions 'PRIVACY TIER 1 (management)' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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