affiliate_mrge_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the call is to a 'minimal authenticated endpoint,' specifies the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and clarifies the scope by contrasting with run_diagnostic. It doesn't explicitly say it's non-mutating, but the verb 'verify' strongly implies a read-only 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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose/method, usage timing, and return format/related tool. No redundant wording, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, method, usage triggers, expected return, and relationship to a related diagnostic tool. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly among many siblings.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds clarity by stating the credentials are 'configured' (pre-set), meaning no user-supplied parameters are needed, which helps the agent understand why the schema is empty.

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 the specific verb 'Verify,' identifies the resource as 'configured credentials for mrge,' and explains the method ('by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verify_auth tools for other networks and from affiliate_run_diagnostic.

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 lists trigger conditions: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also directs the agent to 'pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check,' providing an alternative and implying when not to use this tool alone.

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