verify_copy

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

Discloses that the tool writes after a genuine read-back, which annotations don't fully capture. Details behaviors like promotion, demotion, statuses (Verified, Failed, Missing, passed_unpromoted). Aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). No contradictions.

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 moderately long but front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some details (e.g., algorithm names) could be condensed. Overall, well-structured and informative.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains return statuses (Verified, Failed, passed_unpromoted) and mode dependencies. Covers constraints for disk/NAS, tape, and cloud. Unambiguous about writing behavior. Complete for a complex tool.

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 100% (3 parameters), so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning by explaining the mode difference (fast vs full) and the role of archive_id/destination_id. Provides context that fast mode never promotes and full mode is citable.

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 description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Re-read an archive from one of its destinations and compare it to what was recorded.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., list_tapes, coverage_status) by focusing on verification and promotion. The two modes (full and fast) are clearly defined.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'the only always-on tool that writes' and 'the only pass that can promote.' Provides exclusion criteria: 'cloud read-back runs in the desktop app, not here.' Distinguishes full vs fast mode usage, including when each is appropriate.

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