correct

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'high-priority' and 'always win', indicating precedence, and the idempotency_key suggests replay safety. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, destructive nature, or rate limits.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and adds a key behavioral note. 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?

Given no output schema, the description should mention return type or success indicators. It captures the core purpose but lacks completeness for a creation tool with idempotency. The idempotency_key is noted in schema, but the description could include error handling hints.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It adds context by calling the correction 'high-priority' but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool creates a high-priority correction observation to override AI-extracted fields. It uses specific verbs ('Create') and resources ('correction observation'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'store' or 'create_interpretation' by focusing on corrections that override AI.

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 implies when to use (to correct AI-extracted fields) and states that corrections always win in snapshot computation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, though the context of overriding AI is clear.

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