verify_approval_token

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: the ticket is consumed on success, each ticket is single-use, and the code is bound to the action name, a digest of action parameters, and the expiry. These details are essential for safe invocation and are not available elsewhere.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the primary action and then add essential binding and single-use constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description, annotations, and output schema together make the tool's behavior clear enough. It covers the main mutation and its ticket-consuming effect, though explicit failure behavior and prerequisite guidance are not stated.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that ticket_id represents a ticket and that confirmation_code is validated against the action name, parameter digest, and expiry. It adds substantial meaning, though ticket_id format details remain unspecified.

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 a specific verb (verify), resource (supervisor's confirmation code against a ticket), and the post-success side effect (consume the ticket). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like request_human_approval and complete_event.

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 explains the mechanics of verification but gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as first obtaining a ticket via request_human_approval or what happens when a ticket is invalid.

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