verify_entry

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it stamps 'last_verified' to now, supports an optional note, works on local and team entries, and does not automatically downgrade when stale. This covers all relevant behavioral traits.

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 concise (4-5 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, rationale, optional note, behavioral nuance, and scope. No redundant or vague statements.

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 description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and scope well. For a simple tool with 2 params and no annotations, it is nearly complete. It does not describe the return value (output schema exists but not mentioned), which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'note' is documented as optional record, 'item_id' is implied to identify entries, and scope ('local and team') is provided. It lacks explicit format or constraints for 'item_id', but still adds value.

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 specific verbs ('Confirm', 'stamp') and clearly identifies the resource ('knowledge entry'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'stale_report' and 'promote' by explaining the verification role.

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 explains when to use this tool (after promotion, to prevent staleness) and explicitly points to 'stale_report' for finding stale entries. It also clarifies that verification does not automatically downgrade, providing clear usage context.

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