hebbrix_claim_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key success behavior: memories remain available and guest expiry/caps are replaced by the normal claimed-account tier. It does not cover failure cases or invalid codes, but the main side effect is clearly described.

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 two short sentences/paragraphs, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value—first the action, then the prerequisite and outcome. No wasted words.

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 the simple one-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, and success behavior adequately. It omits edge cases like an invalid code, but the output schema likely handles error reporting.

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 schema only says 'code' is a string, but the description explains it is the 'emailed six-digit code' that the human supplies, providing format, source, and context. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 ('Finish claiming') and identifies the resource ('a guest memory') and method ('emailed six-digit code'). It clearly distinguishes this from the prerequisite hebbrix_claim_start, making the tool's role obvious.

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 explicitly states the only valid calling context: after hebbrix_claim_start and after the human supplies the code. This is a strong precondition and exclusion, though it does not mention alternative tools for verification beyond the implicit sequence.

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