delete_verdict

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a mutation ('Journaled like every mutation'), reveals that it refuses human APPROVED seals, and explains that undo_last can re-seat a lifted mark. This is substantial and goes beyond the basic schema.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, then packs in the essential details: source of the ID, restriction on human seals, and undo/redo behavior. 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, valid ID sources, exclusivity of agent marks, the mutation/journaling behavior, and reversibility via undo_last. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 already fully documents verdict_id with the same source reference, but the description adds important semantic context by clarifying that only agent marks are valid and that human APPROVED seals are refused. This helps the agent understand which IDs are acceptable.

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 and resource: 'Lift an agent verdict mark by id', and immediately tells the reader where to find valid IDs ('mark_verdict's reply, or list_annotations verdicts[]'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_shape or mark_verdict.

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 provides clear usage context: only agent verdict marks can be lifted, while the estimator's APPROVED seal is refused. It also mentions the undo_last journaling behavior, giving the reader practical when-to-use and what-to-expect guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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