execute_proof

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does reveal a meaningful precondition — an allowlisted proof and operator confirmation — implying an approval gate beyond the schema's surface, which is useful. However, it says nothing about side effects, return values, reversibility, or whether execution is long-running, a notable gap for an 'execute' 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler and the preconditions are stated directly. It is concise to the point of thinness — the efficiency is real, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves critical information uncovered: the meaning of a 'proof', expected parameter values, and the outcome of execution. For a 5-parameter (4 required) tool, this is incomplete and would leave an agent uncertain how to invoke it correctly.

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 offers no compensatory explanation of card_id, session_a, session_b, playbook_id, or engagement_id, or how they interrelate. With five unannotated string parameters, the agent is left guessing at values and formats, which the description failed to address.

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 ('run') and a resource ('allowlisted proof'), with the 'allowlisted' qualifier adding an authorization constraint that helps set context. However, it never defines what a 'proof' is or differentiates this from close siblings like execute_wave and draft_proof, leaving the agent to infer the distinction on its own.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings, despite obvious ambiguity with execute_wave, draft_proof, and draft_waves. The 'Requires allow_safe_proof and operator_confirmed' line reads as a precondition rather than a usage context, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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