affiliate_affise_verify_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the verification mechanism, the return payload shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and its limited scope via 'minimal authenticated endpoint,' but it doesn't explicitly state that no state changes occur, though 'verify' strongly implies it.

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 compact—two sentences covering purpose, usage timing, return format, and an alternative tool. There is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to the diagnostic sibling. It is fully self-contained.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return values.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and identifies the exact resource ('configured credentials for Affise') and method ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'). It is clearly distinguished from sibling verify_auth tools by the Affise network designation.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also points to the alternative affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, making the decision boundary clear.

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