petpals.mark_verified

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses a key non-obvious trait (does not move to Done) and describes the mechanism (adding a review comment). However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or how the ticket state is otherwise affected, leaving some gaps.

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 a single sentence that leads with the primary action and includes a crucial exclusion. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral nuance. It could elaborate on what 'verified' implies in the workflow or the format of the review comment, but the essential context for invoking the tool is present.

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 input schema covers two of three parameters with descriptions (ticketId, projectSlug), leaving 'note' undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it does not compensate for the missing note semantics. With moderate schema coverage (67%), a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Mark a ticket as verified' and specifies the mechanism 'by adding a review comment.' It also distinguishes from related tools by explicitly noting 'Does NOT move to Done,' which separates it from status-change tools like move_status or mark_ready_for_human_review.

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 description gives a clear behavioral exclusion ('Does NOT move to Done'), implying when to use this tool (when verification is needed without status advancement). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state prerequisites, though sibling names like reject_completion and mark_ready_for_human_review provide context.

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