aga_set_verification_tier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if changes are reversible, what the default tier is, or any side effects (e.g., impact on verification processes). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Set the verification tier') and includes essential details (the enum values). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the tier (e.g., success response, error conditions), nor does it address behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: it explicitly lists the enum values (BRONZE, SILVER, GOLD), which the schema provides but without descriptive text (0% schema description coverage). This clarifies the parameter's purpose as setting a verification tier, compensating well for the low schema coverage. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for a high score.

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 clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('verification tier'), with specific values (BRONZE, SILVER, GOLD) mentioned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'aga_verify_artifact' or 'aga_verify_bundle' by focusing on configuration rather than verification actions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other tier-related tools (none appear in siblings), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an artifact must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'aga_verify_artifact' that might interact with verification tiers. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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