guild_prove_verify

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

Side effects are clearly disclosed: first success records a real task and receipt and advances the journey stage, while re-proving only refreshes verified_at and never mints new evidence. It also notes that presenting api_key is treated as credential proof, which is important behavioral context.

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 dense but compact, with no filler sentences. The two-paragraph structure separates credential modes from return values, though it could be slightly clearer with a direct input/output breakdown.

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 core side effects and return fields but omits the meaning of the required agent_id parameter and does not explain failure modes or how the challenge object is obtained. Without these details, an agent may struggle to use the tool correctly in the broader guild flow.

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?

The roles of api_key and signature are partially explained, but agent_id is not described even though it is the only required parameter. The schema has no descriptions, and the signature format is only loosely specified as hex ed25519 over a challenge object from guild_prove.

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 names a specific action ('Complete the proving rung') and outlines the result statuses, but the core purpose is wrapped in guild-specific jargon. It does not plainly state that this tool verifies or submits a proof for an agent.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for custodial versus self-sovereign agents and explains first-time versus re-proving behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over related siblings like guild_prove or guild_verify.

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