verify_archive_record

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool replays the event log and does not repair, implying a non-mutating verification operation. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not mention potential performance costs or whether any state is touched during replay.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and adds the key qualifier about not repairing. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 definition lacks parameter explanations, return value details, and any notes on prerequisites or side effects. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, a single sentence is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this tool, especially with an ambiguous boolean parameter.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'slug' is inferable from the tool name, but 'include_rebuilt_snapshot' is completely undefined. The description must compensate for the low schema coverage and it does not.

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 a specific verb+resource: replay an append-only event log and confirm whether it matches the stored snapshot. It also distinguishes the tool from destructive or repair-oriented siblings by explicitly adding 'without repairing it.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the use case: verify the integrity of an archive record against its snapshot. It hints at a non-repair boundary but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over siblings like compare_payload_to_live_state or update_content_artifacts. An agent gets the general context but no explicit routing guidance.

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