credence_verify

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the constraint is excluded from Truth Buffer injection and Consistency Enforcer enforcement, and an audit trail is recorded. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but these are less critical for a verification action.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, consequences, and audit. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 existence of an output schema and the specific nature of the tool, the description covers the main purpose and side effects adequately. It could mention what happens if the constraint doesn't exist or if there are errors, but overall it's sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No improvements needed.

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 clearly states the action ('Mark a registered constraint as verified') and the resource ('constraint'). It also specifies the confirmed value. The tool's role is unique among siblings (e.g., 'credence_register' creates constraints, 'credence_autoverify' presumably automates verification).

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 the tool is used after registering a constraint and when manual verification is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like 'credence_autoverify' or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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