umbra_verify_proposal

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals key behavioral traits: it retains only a test that genuinely fails or errors, rejects malformed concrete_input or expected_property fields with correction reasons, and discards passing proposals. This substantive detail helps the agent anticipate outcomes and side effects.

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 five sentences long, each contributing distinct information: primary action, input source, retention rule, rejection behavior, and follow-up step. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it compact and front-loaded.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, behavioral rules, prerequisites, and successor action, offering a solid operational flow for a complex tool with a nested object. However, it omits details about return values or error response structure (no output schema exists), leaving some gaps for agents needing precise interface knowledge.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter meanings, but it only briefly mentions proof_index and the malformed fields. It does not explain the expected format of concrete_input, expected_property, or the role of module_path, tests_path, and plain_explanation beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run one user-approved Codex proposal through Umbra's execution gate.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like umbra_audit and umbra_write_report by focusing on executing a proposal rather than auditing or reporting.

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 provides workflow guidance by instructing to use proof_index from umbra_audit's structured proof_requests and to re-run umbra_audit after a test write. It establishes clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives beyond the implicit sequencing.

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