Character name correction

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), and the description adds real value beyond them: the term is persisted as an alias and the correction is timestamped in a log. It could go further on what happens if the term is already aliased to a different character, but the persistence and logging disclosure is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior in one sentence, then the persistence detail, then a compact Args block. Slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the Args block for char_id, but nothing is wasted.

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 small mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers what changes, what is logged, and what each argument means. Remaining gaps (collision behavior when a term is already aliased) are minor and not required for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it documents all three parameters: term is the raw user text with a concrete example, char_id accepts an id or any known name (matching the anyOf int/string union), and note is optional free text. That is meaningfully more than the bare schema titles provide.

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 ('teach the table that term refers to a character') and frames itself as 'the manual fix for a wrong match', which separates it from automatic matchers like character_match and from character_update. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 'the manual fix for a wrong match' gives clear context for when to reach for it, distinguishing it from the automatic matching path. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative sibling (character_match) or stating when not to use it, so it misses the top band.

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