verify_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the mutation's side effects (provenance re-stamp, drift-annotation clearing, reactivation of stale entities). It does not cover permissions/auth needs, reversibility, or failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the code still drifted), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the effect chain comes first, then the routing guidance. Zero filler and no repetition of the schema or 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and selection criteria adequately. It leaves minor gaps around return values and error/drift-remaining behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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% for both parameters (id and repo), so the schema already documents them fully; the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what is structured. 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?

States a specific verb (re-verify) on a specific resource (knowledge entity) and enumerates the concrete effects: re-stamping verified_against provenance, clearing drift annotations, and reactivating stale entities. It is clearly distinguishable from update_knowledge, which it names.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('after reading drift-flagged or stale knowledge and confirming it is still accurate') and when not to ('not for changing content'), naming the correct alternative tool. Nothing is left to inference.

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