verify_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the report sections and how optional inputs change the output, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions or prerequisites are required, or how failures are reported.

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 three tight sentences with no wasted language. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by return contents and conditional input effects.

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 seven-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job naming the returned report sections and explaining how optional inputs add sections. It is not fully complete because it omits safety/read-only behavior and does not explain the change-gate thresholds beyond what the schema provides.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds some conditional meaning for plan_id, snapshot_name, and graph paths, but it does not mention max_ambiguous or min_resolution and largely repeats what the schema already says.

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 verb and resource: verify a change and return a unified report with named sections. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as validate_plan or inspect_symbol.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Verify a change' and by conditional notes about plan_id, snapshot_name, and graph paths. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative for cases where another sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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