ps_symbol_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's purpose and usage scenarios well, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, how it affects system state, or what happens to existing verification data. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides usage guidance in bullet points, and ends with an important note about accusatory claims. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about when and how to use it. The main gap is the lack of information about what the tool returns or how the verification affects system state. Given the complexity of verification operations, some information about behavioral outcomes would be helpful, but the description covers usage context thoroughly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It provides context about the status values but doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances beyond the schema's baseline 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 with specific verbs ('record human verification', 'upgrade or dispute claims') and identifies the resource ('symbol claim'). It distinguishes from siblings like ps_symbol_get or ps_symbol_update by focusing specifically on verification status changes rather than general retrieval or modification.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to upgrade or dispute claims based on human review') and includes specific scenarios for each status (VERIFIED, CORROBORATED, DISPUTED). It also gives important exclusion criteria for accusatory claims that should be disputed under certain conditions, offering clear decision-making context.

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