dhp_require_capability

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: 'fail-closed' declares behavior on a missing grant, and 'Every check is audited' discloses a side effect the agent would otherwise not know about. It leaves open whether failure manifests as an error or a false result, and says nothing about permissions needed to call it.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core semantics (fail-closed capability check) and then adds the usage constraint and audit note. No sentence is filler and nothing important is buried.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the safety-critical semantics of a guard check. The main remaining gap is the meaning/format of handoff_id and worker_id, plus an explicit statement of the failure surface, which for a fail-closed gate would be useful.

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% with four required parameters, so the description must compensate. It explicitly ties 'domain' and 'resource' to the contract grant, but handoff_id and worker_id are never explained, leaving half the required inputs to be inferred from their names alone.

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 and resource: verify that the handoff's contract grants (domain, resource). It is clearly a pre-flight authorization guard, which is distinguishable in spirit from mutation siblings like dhp_claim or dhp_record_effect, though it never names or contrasts those siblings directly.

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?

It gives a strong ordering rule – call this before touching network, filesystem, or external services – which tells the agent exactly when the check belongs in a workflow. It does not name alternatives or state when this check is unnecessary (i.e., purely local, read-only work), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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