affiliate_connexity_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the call is minimal and authenticated, and details the exact return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). While it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, the nature of an auth verification tool implies no side effects, and the return contract is transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage triggers, and return format. The most critical information is front-loaded, with 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?

For a zero-parameter auth verification tool, the description is complete. It covers what it does, when to use it, what to expect in response, and how it relates to the diagnostic tool. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return format.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior and return value rather than parameter details, which are irrelevant here.

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 tool's function: verifying configured Connexity credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint. It distinctly names the network (Connexity) and the action (verify auth), differentiating it from sibling verify_auth tools for other networks.

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 provided on when to use: at session start, after rotating keys, or when an auth error occurs. It also recommends pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, giving a clear alternative.

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