record_source_correction

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the operation appends rather than rewrites prior history, suggesting non-destructive behavior toward existing archive records. However, it does not explain concurrency behavior around expected_revision, what happens on mismatch, whether the operation is idempotent, or what response/errors to expect.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action immediately ('append a provenance correction') and adds the most important behavioral constraint ('without rewriting the earlier archive history') in a compact way. Every word contributes value.

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 8 parameters, 6 required fields, no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, this one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The agent cannot determine what values are valid for field, how expected_revision is used, what source_url and corrected_at mean, or what success/failure looks like.

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%, and the description provides almost no parameter-level meaning. The word 'correction' loosely implies previous_value and corrected_value, but the critical fields slug, expected_revision, field, and reason are not explained. With 8 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description should compensate far more than it does.

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 specific verb ('append'), a specific resource ('provenance correction'), and an important qualifier ('without rewriting the earlier archive history'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like update_content_artifacts or record_publication, which imply modification or new event recording rather than append-only correction.

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 phrase 'without rewriting the earlier archive history' implies this tool is appropriate when preserving audit history matters, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_content_artifacts or verify_archive_record. No sibling tool is named, and no when-not-to-use condition is stated, so usage guidance remains mostly implied.

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