verify_amendment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that verdict fields are reported separately, that amendments are ephemeral and carry no external trust, and that citation refusal is computed and discarded internally. This is unusually transparent about side effects and limitations.

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 dense but front-loaded, leading with the core purpose and then adding necessary caveats. Every sentence carries meaningful information, though the internal implementation detail about verifyAmendment's call to verifyCharter is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the verdict structure, state persistence, trust boundaries, excluded checks, and the correct alternative tools. This is a complete enough picture for an agent to call the tool and interpret its result appropriately.

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%, and the description never explicitly maps charter_id and amendment_id to their roles or formats. The wording 'its charter's amendment policy' and 'amendments live only in this process' only indirectly hints at the parameters, so the description does not adequately compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Verify an amendment against its charter's amendment policy.' It then explicitly states what the tool does not do (citation checking), sharply distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_charter.

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 explicitly says citations are NOT checked here and directs the agent to verify_charter and attribution_receipts before relying on the verdict. It also warns that session state is not an authoritative registry, clarifying when the tool's result should not be over-trusted.

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