Append a verification check to a stored view to document evidence and enable deterministic warrant evaluation. Use ingest attestation when originating from a trusted source.
Append a VerificationCheck to a stored view. Trusted origin requires ingest_attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check | Yes | ||
| view_id | No | ||
| proposition_id | Yes | ||
| ingest_attestation | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the operation appends a check and that trusted-origin callers must supply ingest_attestation, adding some auth-related context. However, it does not explain side effects, immutability, failure behavior, or whether existing data is modified beyond the append.
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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The only minor issue is the unexplained term 'Trusted origin,' which could confuse an agent.
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?
For a tool with four parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits key guidance on proposition_id/view_id semantics, the shape of check, when to use the tool, and what happens after the append, leaving an agent under-informed 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only alludes to 'check' and 'ingest_attestation.' It does not clarify the roles of proposition_id, view_id, the structure of the check object, or how ingest_attestation relates to authorization.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Append a VerificationCheck to a stored view.' This clearly indicates a state-changing operation and is distinct enough from siblings like ewp_evidence_view_get. However, 'VerificationCheck' and 'stored view' are domain-specific and not fully disambiguated from ewp_evidence_view_put or ewp_evidence_record.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The phrase 'Trusted origin requires ingest_attestation' is a useful precondition, but it does not explain when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as ewp_evidence_record or ewp_evidence_view_put.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.