Verifies a content variant's approval remains valid by recomputing its hash from current fields and comparing it with the approved hash, flagging any post-approval change as invalid.
Verify a variant's approval is still valid: recompute the hash from current fields and compare with the approved hash. Any post-approval change = invalid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variant_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral load. It does well on the core mechanism (hash recomputation, invalidation on any change), which implies a read-only comparison, but it never states that it has no side effects, does not say what happens when no approval record exists or the hash algorithm version changed, and does not describe the shape of the result beyond invalid/valid.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the verification mechanism front-loaded before the invalidation rule. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what is returned (a boolean? a mismatch detail? an error when unapproved). It covers the logic well but leaves the return contract and the no-approval-exists case undefined, which matters for an agent making a gating decision.
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% for the single required parameter variant_id, and the description only refers to 'a variant's approval' indirectly. It gives no guidance on the identifier's format, whether it is the variant ID from variant_revise/adapt_preview, or what happens with an unknown ID.
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 gives a specific verb ('Verify') and object ('a variant's approval'), then explains the exact mechanism: recompute the hash from current fields and compare with the approved hash. That distinguishes it from approve_variant and approval_pack, though it does not name those siblings 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?
The context is implied — check this when you need to confirm an approval hasn't been invalidated by later edits ('Any post-approval change = invalid'). There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus approve_variant or approval_pack, and no prerequisite or ordering guidance (for example, whether an approval must already exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.