mark_program_verified

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden alone. It does disclose the two side effects (status set to verified, timestamp stamped), which is useful, but omits whether this is irreversible, whether it requires elevated permissions, or whether repeated calls are idempotent.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words, and the state change is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it sacrifices any routing or precondition content for brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutations performed. However, for a state-changing tool with no annotations, missing permission, idempotency, and parameter-identity details leave it only minimally 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description never mentions program_id or what it refers to, leaving the sole parameter entirely undocumented. With one required parameter and no schema-level explanation, the description fails to compensate.

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 ('set') and names the exact state change and field ('research_status to verified', 'last_verified_at'), so the operation is clear without opening the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like update_program_fit, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus update_program_fit or other state-changing siblings, and no preconditions or alternatives are named. The agent must infer that this is the verification-specific path.

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