verify_change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'reread' behavior, implying it fetches the current operation state, but it does not disclose how mismatches are reported or whether any side effects occur. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it does not waste space restating schema fields or annotations.

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 annotations and output schema cover safety and return structure, but the description omits usage context and the purpose of optional parameters. For a required two-parameter verify operation, it is minimally adequate, but it leaves gaps about when and why to use transactionId or documentRevision.

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. It names the core 'operation' and 'expected feed/spindle values', which maps to operationId and expected, but it does not explain the optional transactionId and documentRevision parameters or add any detail beyond what the schema already shows. The compensation is incomplete.

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 action ('verify') and resource ('operation') with a precise domain (feed/spindle values). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_operation, inspect, measure, or assert, which have broader or different purposes.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_operation, preview_operation_parameters, or assert. The context in which verification is appropriate—e.g., after a parameter change or before execution—is only weakly implied by 'reread' and 'verify'.

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