verify_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple recitation by explaining what is verified ('live Studio state'), what is rerun ('source sanity audits'), and what is reported ('index drift'). While it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe error conditions, the verb 'Verifies' and the action 'reports' strongly imply a non-mutating operation, providing meaningful 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 a single sentence with three concise clauses, all of which earn their place. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 that this tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains the core purpose and the key behaviors (verification, sanity audits, index drift reporting). It could mention what the output looks like or any prerequisites, but for a tool of this simplicity, the description adequately covers the essential context.

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 100% of the parameter (transaction_id) with a description that explains it is 'Transaction ID returned by a mutation tool.' The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verifies') and clearly identifies the resource ('recorded transaction against live Studio state'), along with additional actions ('reruns source sanity audits' and 'reports index drift'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like sanity_check_script or audit_* tools, which focus on other aspects.

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 implies a clear usage context: after a mutation tool returns a transaction_id, this tool verifies the transaction against live state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to know when to invoke it. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, but that is not essential for this tool.

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