save_verification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the entire burden and does well: it discloses that ok entries are stamped verifiedAt, that failures are flagged verificationFailed with the supplied note, and that failed state propagates to three named downstream tools until corrected. It is silent on permissions, idempotency/overwrite behavior when a verdict is resaved, and whether clearing a failure requires an ok entry.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the state effects, then the one constraint. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey consequences — and it does, naming the exact state flags applied and the tools where failures resurface. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the only gap is the semantics of overwriting or clearing a prior verdict.

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 100%, so the schema already documents dir, verdicts, and the ok/note shape including that note is required when ok is false. The description's only parameter-adjacent statement ('Verdict notes are required for failures') restates what the schema says, adding no new syntax or format information. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource pair ('Record verify_snapshot verdicts') that clearly positions this as the persistence counterpart to the sibling verify_snapshot tool, which computes those verdicts. It does not spell out the compute-vs-record split explicitly, but the phrasing is enough for an agent to distinguish the two.

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 conveys the workflow context (this is where verify_snapshot verdicts get stored) and, more usefully, what happens afterwards — failures surface in get_context, get_snapshot, and mason_check_drift until corrected. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or exclusion statement, and no mention of re-verification cadence, so it falls short of a full 5.

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