distillery_correct

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it supersedes the original, preserves audit trail, returns archived_entry_id, and includes a detailed error code list. It also explains inheritance defaults, making side effects and edge cases transparent to the agent.

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 long but efficiently structured with clear headers (USE WHEN, PARAMS, RETURNS, RELATED). The core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and each section adds essential information without redundancy. Bullet-like formatting makes it scannable for an agent.

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?

The description covers all operational aspects: purpose, usage conditions, parameter semantics, return values (success and error), and related tools. It also explains inheritance behavior and error codes. No missing information that an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the entire burden. It describes every parameter, marks required vs optional, explains inheritance for optional fields, and enumerates valid values for entry_type. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and exceeds what a schema alone would 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?

The opening sentence states a specific verb ('store a correction') and resource ('an existing entry') with clear intent to supersede. The RELATED line explicitly differentiates from distillery_update and distillery_relations, eliminating ambiguity about which tool to call.

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?

Provides an explicit 'USE WHEN' condition that describes the exact scenario (wrong information, need to replace while preserving audit trail) and names alternative tools for other cases. The RELATED section gives clear routing guidance, so an agent knows exactly when to pick this over its siblings.

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