record_pin_verification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a write operation recording a verification outcome and displays the verdict on the dashboard. It does not describe idempotency, side effects, or error behavior, but it adequately covers the core behavior for a simple recording tool.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second specifies caller, third explains impact. Efficient and well-structured.

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 4 parameters all described in schema and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about when and why to use the tool. It covers the caller, purpose, and result. It could briefly mention how notes are displayed or the meaning of 'pending', but overall complete for the use case.

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 mentions the status values like 'verified', 'regressed', 'inconclusive', but these are already defined in the schema with enum descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Record the outcome' and the resource 'on a resolved pin', specifying it is for post-deploy verification by a critic subagent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'approve_pin' or 'resolve_annotation' by focusing on the AI verification use case.

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 explicitly states it is called by the critic subagent after auto-critique on a fresh deploy, providing clear context when to use. However, it does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives, though the context implies it is not for general pin updates.

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