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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotence, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: consume mode spends the proof, check mode avoids consumption, audit evidence may be created, and the application must enforce the returned decision. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences with no waste. The critical mode choice and enforcement requirement are front-loaded, followed by permission and audit context.

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?

Covers the essential behavioral contract for a destructive verification tool: mode semantics, proof consumption, enforcement, permissions, and audit evidence. It does not describe the shape of the returned decision or how to handle failure cases, and without an output schema that leaves a minor gap.

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 high, so the schema is expected to carry parameter documentation. The description adds meaning for the mode parameter (check vs consume) and references proof/circuit/policy, but does not explain the many optional nested fields such as sector, gate_id, or device_secret. 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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (proof-based permission against a circuit or policy), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling verification tools like affix_circuit_verify or affix_verify, but the gate/policy framing provides useful specificity.

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?

Gives explicit guidance on choosing between check and consume modes, and states the prerequisite 'Requires mcp:write' plus the enforcement requirement. It does not mention when to use this tool instead of similar verification siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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