verify

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false): it discloses that `at` is stamped as now/UTC, that the human path triggers a confirmation prompt and requires the human to type their own id, and that `promote=true` moves a draft to stable with the constraint that only a human review may do so. It does not say what happens on re-verification of an already-verified concept or how failures surface.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cleanly structured as 'Two paths:' followed by the machine case and the human case. Dense but every clause carries information; the only friction is the unexplained §-references that assume spec familiarity.

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?

A non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage needs to explain its inputs and effects fully. The human/machine paths and the promote side-effect are covered, but the required `file` parameter (what identifies the concept) and `bundle` are left entirely unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does an excellent job on `by` (three accepted forms, which to omit) and explains `promote` as draft→stable, but never explains the required `file` parameter or the `bundle` parameter, leaving half the schema undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: record a `verified` entry with `{by, at}` and an auto UTC timestamp. It is distinguishable in kind from siblings like `record` or `log`, but the '§5.2 verified entry' framing relies on spec knowledge and it never explicitly contrasts itself with `record`/`recheck_apply`.

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?

Gives genuinely explicit branch guidance: use the `by=<tool>/<version>` or `process:<id>` path when a machine checked the concept, omit `by` when a human checks it. Adds hard exclusions ('Never pass human:<id> yourself', 'Present the concept to them first') and the terminal `--attest` path. It stops short of saying when to call `verify` rather than sibling `record` or `recheck_apply`.

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