Verify Requirement

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it sets a status and can link an observation, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing statuses are overwritten, whether the criterion must exist, or what happens to previously linked observations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and key parameters. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects) and a fully described input schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the core operation. It could be improved by clarifying the effect on existing statuses, but the provided information is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, giving baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by synthesizing the relationship between the observation_id and the verification action ('optionally linking a test observation'), which clarifies the purpose of that parameter and the overall workflow.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('acceptance criterion'), and lists the possible statuses ('verified, failing, or skipped'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic node tools like update_node. It precisely states what the tool does.

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 this tool is used when an acceptance criterion needs to be assigned a verification status, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as update_node or add_node. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the choice somewhat inferred.

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