hr_identity_verify

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description does not disclose what side effects the identity_verify action may have. It does add routing and scoping context (JWT, tenant, company scope), which is useful, but it omits any warning about what gets changed, created, or removed. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 short and includes a clean Args block with no obvious fluff. However, the opening sentence is tautological, and the real content is mostly in the routing sentence and generic parameter definitions. Brevity is achieved by omitting substantive information, so it is concise but not effectively informative.

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 destructive, open-ended domain-agent action, the description is incomplete. It omits what identity_verify actually does, what inputs the action can consume, when it should be used, and what side effects to expect. The routing and scope information is helpful, and the output schema may cover return values, but the core operational context is missing.

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 carry the parameter semantics. It defines message as a 'free-text objective' and inputs as an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', which is minimal. It does not explain what structured inputs identity_verify expects, how to format them, or when inputs are needed. Both parameters are optional, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke the action correctly.

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 opens with 'Run the hr domain agent action `identity_verify`', which essentially restates the tool name and does not explain what identity verification actually does or produces. The routing sentence adds mechanism, not purpose. An agent cannot distinguish this from generic dispatchers like dispatch_domain_agent or from HR tools like hr_lookup or hr_kyc_intake.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dispatch_domain_agent, invoke_agent_marketplace_action, or other hr_* tools. The mention of a 'free-text objective' implies generic delegation, but no use cases, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative pointers are provided. The agent is left to infer appropriateness from the name alone.

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