Verify Block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (mark as verified/wrong, persisted), but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or permissions. It is informative but not deeply transparent about consequences.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action in the first sentence and usage context in the second. No wasted words, perfectly sized for the complexity.

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 simple tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It mentions persistence and the viewer-driven calling context, but leaves out edge cases like idempotency or what happens on repeated calls.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond reiterating the document_id + node_id usage, which is already in the schema.

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 tool's action: 'Mark an extracted block as verified (✓) or wrong (✗), persisted to the document.' This is a specific verb+resource+outcome, distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_source or approve_run.

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?

It provides clear context for when the tool is used: 'Called by the view_document viewer when the user clicks a block; also usable directly with document_id + node_id.' This explains the invocation path, though it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like verify_source.

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