Correct a fact

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

Annotations already declare this is a destructive, non-read-only mutation, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that omitting new_fact retires the fact, but does not discuss reversibility, invalid ids, or permissions beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the replacement action and follows with the retirement variant. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with annotations covering destructiveness, the description covers the main behavioral choices and the id source. It leaves minor gaps around irreversibility and error behavior but is otherwise sufficient.

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 only 50%, with fact_id undocumented in the schema, but the description explains that fact_id comes from recall or what_do_i_know. It also explains that omitting new_fact invalidates the fact, adding useful meaning alongside the schema's own note.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: replacing or retiring a fact, with the retirement mechanism stated. It references recall and what_do_i_know as the source for the fact id, but does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the sibling forget.

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 clearly states when to use it: for a wrong or outdated fact, or to retire one by omitting new_fact. It also points to recall and what_do_i_know for obtaining the id, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer forget over correction.

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