athena_impossible_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect ('P3 mints append-only Immortal title records') and states preconditions for each tier. However, it does not mention failure modes, reversibility, permissions, or the full scope of side effects for P4/P5, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and tier definitions. Each sentence earns its place: action, requirements, and a notable side effect. No wasted words 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?

The tool is complex (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers only the tier-selection logic and one side effect. It does not explain return values, how to obtain verification_id or completion_id, the meaning of verifier_coordinate, or the role of optional parameters, so the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 description adds meaning to several parameters: target_proof_tier (P3/P4/P5), witness_refs (attack witnesses), generalization_ref and downstream_reuse_refs (P5 requirement), and verifier_id (different active verifier). But with 0% schema coverage, it leaves verification_id, completion_id, verifier_coordinate, immortal_title, party_immortal_title, and remote unexplained, creating gaps for half the parameters.

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 a specific action: 'Upgrade a completion through independent P3, adversarial P4, or crystallized/reused P5 verification.' It defines the resource (completion) and the verb (upgrade), and the tier details distinguish it from sibling tools like athena_impossible_open or athena_impossible_complete.

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 prerequisites for each verification tier: 'P3+ requires a different active verifier; P4 requires at least five attack witnesses; P5 requires generalization plus downstream reuse.' This gives clear context on when each mode is valid, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool.

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