resolution_verify

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose failure modes (wrong-source refusal by name, dispute blocking) and the state transition, which is genuinely useful. However, jargon like 'T1 (core-local)' and '(5.4)' is unexplained, and nothing is said about permissions, idempotency, or what a successful promotion returns.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with the action front-loaded, so there is little waste. But the cryptic prefix 'T1 (core-local)' and the trailing section reference '(5.4)' consume space without conveying anything an agent can act on.

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 four-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the governing rules well but leaves half the parameters undefined and gives no sense of the result of a successful promotion. It is adequate to understand the policy, not quite adequate to construct an arbitrary valid call.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'verification_source' and 'dispute_cleared' can be loosely inferred from the prose rules, but 'instrument_id' and especially 'criteria_match' are never explained, and an agent cannot tell whether the booleans are inputs it supplies or values the tool checks.

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 states a specific verb and state transition ('Promote REPORTED -> VERIFIED'), which makes the operation unmistakable. It implicitly separates itself from resolution_report and resolution_get by describing a mutation rather than a read, though it never names those siblings or the object type explicitly.

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 a strong conditional rule: verification may only use the criteria's OWN named source of truth, any other source is refused, and an open dispute blocks the operation until cleared. That covers when the call will succeed versus fail, but no sibling alternative is named for the cases it refuses.

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