knowledge_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sets verified_at and optionally freshness_anchor, and an optional note appends a dated section to the body (append-only). It also mentions rejection behaviors. However, it omits details like idempotency or authentication requirements, though these are minor.

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 four concise sentences, front-loading the core action ('Stamp a knowledge page as verified WITHOUT touching its body') and logically separating modes and constraints. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's behavior well: it explains modes, constraints, and rejection conditions. However, it does not explicitly describe the return value on success (e.g., confirmation or timestamps), which would add completeness for an agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the two modes, mutual exclusivity of slug and slugs, the effect of note appending ('Never replaces the body'), and that freshness_anchor is preserved when omitted. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 action: 'Stamp a knowledge page as verified WITHOUT touching its body' and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like knowledge_write by recommending 'use it (never knowledge_write) to record claims still hold'. It covers both single-page and batch modes, leaving no ambiguity about the resource or verb.

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 versus alternatives ('never knowledge_write'), explains the two modes (single vs batch) with mutual exclusivity, and lists constraints such as rejection of archived pages and failure of batch on unknown slugs. This is comprehensive and actionable.

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