contextCorrect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses append-only semantics ('history is preserved'), conflict resolution ('the latest correction wins'), and the exact return shape (the overlay's contextPins/{uid}). It leaves out idempotency and permission failure behaviour beyond what the schema's scope caveat already covers.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the input contract, followed by the event-sourcing semantics and the return value. No sentence is 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?

An output schema exists and parameter coverage is complete, so the description only needs to explain the non-obvious mutation model — which it does. It could still say what happens when the targetId isn't in the current brief or how the overlay interacts with the original pin, which is the only gap for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 targetId, text and scope are already fully documented, including the ULID/entities/{uid} forms and the team membership caveat. The description restates the id forms and adds only that the text is rendered 'in its place' — a marginal delta over the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb-plus-target — correct a wrong item surfaced by the cold-start brief — plus a stated effect (the brief renders the corrected text in place). It distinguishes itself from updateEntity/editDocument by declaring the correction is a new event rather than an in-place edit, so an agent can pick it apart from the neighbouring mutation tools.

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?

It clearly scopes usage to items the cold-start brief surfaced, and the 'NEW event, not in-place edit' note tells the agent when this is the right mechanism versus a normal edit. It never names an explicit alternative sibling or states a when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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