affiliate_howl_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the call type (minimal authenticated endpoint), the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and that it operates on preconfigured credentials. It does not detail side effects or failure modes beyond the reason field, but for a verification tool this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence delivers distinct value: purpose, usage timing, return result and relationship to diagnostic. No redundant or filler content.

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, no-output-schema verification tool, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what, when, response format, and points to affine_run_diagnostic for broader health checks. No critical context is missing.

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 schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the credentials are 'configured' in the system, implying no runtime input is needed. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 purpose: verifying Howl credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling verify_auth tools by naming Howl, and from the broader diagnostic tool by showing a complementary relationship.

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 provides usage contexts: at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also references affiliate_run_diagnostic as the full health check option, giving clear guidance on when to pair with it.

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