passage_correct

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it clarifies the operation is additive (original is not deleted) and discloses the side effect that affected conclusions are invalidated and must be reviewed again.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts (the additive nature of the write, then the review consequence). No filler.

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 five-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not say what is returned, whether a new passage identifier is produced, or how the corrected passage relates to the original in downstream review workflows.

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 required parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It hints that 'text' is the corrected transcription but says nothing about reason, reviewer, passageId, or projectId, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: create a corrected transcription while preserving the original. That is clearer than a bare name restatement, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling passage_add, which plausibly covers similar ground.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for fixing an existing passage's transcription, and the note that affected conclusions need re-review signals the downstream context. No explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative is given.

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