correct_trial_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: the correction is appended to executor_output_json under 'corrections', both claimed and corrected states are retained, and the direction-toward-completed refusal rule is disclosed. The 'reason' mandate and the ban on direct DB edits add concrete behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the subsequent sentences all carry weight (valid statuses, refusal rule, audit destination, DB warning). It is somewhat verbose and the closing 'commitment 1 — the loop is the unit (orphan check)' line is opaque, keeping it just short of maximal.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description instead covers everything else an agent needs: valid status directions, mandatory reason, the refusal condition on correcting to completed, and the audit-trail side effect. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning: it explicates that the source status is effectively terminal-only (completed|failed|retryable) and constrains to_status semantically rather than just enumerating it, plus reinforces that reason is mandatory and fed into the audit trail.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Correct a terminal trial's status') and characterizes it as 'the recorded repair act', which distinguishes it from siblings like mark_retryable, run_trial, and cancel_trial. An agent immediately understands this is an audited correction of an existing terminal status, not a status transition driver.

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?

Gives an explicit motivating scenario (executor wrapper exited 0 while output documents a crash) and states the valid source/target status pairs. It also states a negative condition — correcting TO completed is refused unless the record evidences an actual completion — and warns against direct sqlite3 UPDATE. When-to-use, when-refused, and the alternative-to-avoid are all covered.

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