affiliate_cake_verify_auth

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that it calls a 'minimal authenticated endpoint,' describes the exact return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and implicitly signals it is a lightweight, non-destructive check.

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 three tightly written sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives usage timing, and the third covers output and related tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it explains the purpose, when to invoke, the expected return format, and how it complements a broader diagnostic. No essential information is missing for an AI agent to select and invoke this correctly.

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 and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter-specific semantics to describe. The description does provide context around the tool's purpose and behavior, which is the best possible for a no-parameter tool; the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 resource ('configured credentials for CAKE'), clearly stating the tool's action and scope. It distinguishes this from sibling verify_auth tools by naming the network (CAKE) and from affiliate_run_diagnostic by noting this is a focused auth check.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also clarifies the relationship to an alternative (pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check), effectively indicating when not to rely on this tool alone.

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