Verify Candidate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral context: the authority-port dependency and the named dependency_blocked/ConceptAuthorityUnavailable failure mode, plus the guarantee it never mints or reuses an id. However, that behavior is framed for "every mutating action" in the family, which is only marginally relevant to this read-only tool and adds confusion rather than clarity for this specific operation.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but two of the three sentences describe the injected authority port and mutating-family behavior rather than this read-only tool. The content is not padded word-by-word, but it is misdirected for the specific operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with 26 parameters and a read-only verify operation the description should clarify what is being verified and against what. Instead it spends its budget on family-wide dependency behavior, leaving the core operation undefined.

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 100% across 26 parameters, so the schema fully documents each field (e.g. candidate, repo_path, expected_fence). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

"Verify candidate (rm_concepts)" essentially restates the title, but "Concept-id claim coordination against RMDD-16's central authority" does add domain context (concept-id claim coordination). However, it never states what verification actually does (e.g. diff a candidate against a repo), and it does not differentiate this tool from the closely named sibling rm_concepts_verify_generation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as rm_concepts_verify_generation or rm_concepts_reserve. The agent is left to infer the selection context entirely from the name and schema.

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