update_correspondence

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so mutation semantics are declared. The description adds nothing beyond this: no replacement behavior (which the schema's 'Replaces the notes' implies), no permission/auth needs, no handling of unspecified fields. With annotations carrying the load, the description still earns little credit.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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 7-parameter mutation tool at 29% schema coverage, one sentence is inadequate. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description omits replacement semantics, optional-field behavior, and parameter meaning that the agent needs to call it 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 only 29% (2 of 7 params described), so the description is expected to compensate but does not. It mentions no parameter by name or format; only the oblique 'Widerspruch' reference loosely relates to objection_status. Five parameters (subject, summary, file_path, reference, entry_id) remain undocumented in both places.

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+resource ('Update a correspondence entry'), which separates it from log_correspondence and list_correspondence. The 'e.g. mark that a Widerspruch has been filed' example clarifies the intended scope. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 example ('mark that a Widerspruch has been filed') implies a usage scenario, giving an agent a concrete cue. However, it never states when to use this versus log_correspondence (new entries) or delete_entry, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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