Verify checked result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Approval produces verified, not committed,' which hints at the workflow but fails to disclose idempotency details, version conflict handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 with no waste. But each sentence is concise without being thorough. It is not overly long, but the brevity leaves out critical context. Front-loaded information is adequate.

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?

A relatively complex workflow with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is too sparse to guide an agent on correct invocation. It lacks context on expected versions, idempotency, and reviewer assignment. It feels like a placeholder.

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%, so the description must compensate for all 7 parameters. It does not mention any parameters, so the meaning of `evidenceRefs`, `expectedVersion`, or `idempotencyKey` is not clarified. Baseline for zero coverage and 7 params should be lower than 3, but the schema itself has descriptive names and types. Still, the description adds no value.

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 the tool applies a second evidence gate to a checked result, which is specific about the resource and action. However, it could be clearer about what 'verify' means in contrast to 'check' and 'commit' among sibling tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'second evidence gate' implies a sequential step after checking, but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternatives like result_check or task_commit.

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