affiliate_tapfiliate_verify_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the method (minimal authenticated endpoint), the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and implies a non-mutating verification. It doesn't explicitly state permissions or read-only status, but the verification nature is clear and the return format adds useful context.

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 exactly three sentences: purpose, usage triggers, and return format with a pairing suggestion. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant or filler words.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, return values, and a related tool. The only significant gap is the undocumented 'brand' parameter, but the overall context is sufficient for basic usage, especially given the extensive sibling toolset.

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 input schema lists only 'brand' as a required string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the meaning or expected values of 'brand,' so the agent is left to infer that it selects the Tapfiliate configuration. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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: 'Verify the configured credentials for Tapfiliate are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' This uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling verify_auth tools by explicitly naming Tapfiliate.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also mentions pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, helping the agent choose between this tool and an alternative.

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