correct

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by explaining the priority model, tie-breaking rules (source-kind precedence, then deterministic recency), and instructing the agent to verify via entity snapshot and field provenance before claiming success. It does not discuss idempotency replay behavior or auth, but the core semantics are transparent.

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 three sentences long with no filler. The main purpose and priority model are front-loaded, the caveat about higher-priority sources follows naturally, and the final verification instruction is actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 write tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, how priority and tie-breaking work, and how to confirm the effect. It could be slightly more complete by explaining what the successful response looks like or when not to use the tool, but the provided guidance is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level meaning around the correction's priority and verification, but it does not add details about the format or semantics of individual parameters like field, value, entity_id, or entity_type beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a priority-1000 correction observation.' It further clarifies the tool's unique role by stating it overrides lower-priority extracted fields, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_relationship or create_interpretation.

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 clear contextual guidance: corrections are priority-1000 and only override lower-priority fields. It also states that higher-priority sources remain authoritative, implying a key limitation for when the correction will or will not take effect. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this when...' in a direct way.

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