validate_retroactive_achievement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: caller must be an admin of the owning company, cross-issuer attempts are rejected, the original conquest date is preserved, and it creates a certificate (Post). This goes beyond basic mutation disclosure, though it does not detail the full lifecycle of the unverified achievement.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. Each sentence adds new information: the action and input, the security constraint, and the specific use case. The description is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool has 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose, admin requirement, and a specific workflow, which is sufficient for an AI agent to understand when to invoke it. However, it omits details about return values or side effects on the achievement, leaving a minor gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It mentions the relationship between event_id and badge_id, but that is also present in the schema. Overall, the schema already documents the parameters well, so the description contributes minimal additional value.

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: 'Issue an official retroactive certificate (Post) from a user-submitted unverified Achievement.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'issue_certificates' by focusing on retroactive certificates from unverified achievements and the lead-conversion flow, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 identifies the exact use case: 'Used for the Hugo Furtado lead-conversion flow.' It also provides important context about caller admin permissions and cross-issuer rejection, but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which would fully meet the 5-level criteria.

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