correct_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation is visible (affects published state) and identity-preserving, but it doesn't say what happens to existing content, whether the correction note replaces or supplements content, how lifecycle is impacted, or whether feeds are affected. Significant side effects of a mutation like this are undisclosed.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Publish a visible correction') and includes the key constraint ('preserving entry identity'). Every word earns its place; there is no filler or 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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotationsholistic, a required correction note, and a complex, optional patch object. The description omits essential context: what the correction note means, how the patch interacts with the correction, whether the tool changes lifecycle status, and what the output contains. The output schema exists but is not shown, and the description doesn't mention return values either. Given the tool's complexityeasier, this description is far from complete.

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 3 top-level parameters with 0% description coverageable coverage. The tool description does not explain entry_id, correction_note, or patch at all. The phrase 'visible correction' hints that correction_note holds the correction text, and the EntryPatch definition in the schema partially explains patch, but the description itself contributes almost no parameter meaning. An agent would struggle to know how to construct a correct patch.

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 states a clear, specific action: publish a visible correction while preserving entry identity. It clearly references the resource (entry) and the operation (correct), setting it apart from a generic update. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like update_entry or retract_entry, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a scenario (need to correct an entry visibly while keeping its identity), but offers no exclusions or comparisons with create_entry, update_entry, or retract_entry. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name and the one-line purpose.

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