Confirm a note's content remains valid, refreshing its verification timestamp and clearing the stale flag to keep the knowledge base accurate.
노트(결정/교훈)를 재검증 완료로 표시한다 — 내용이 여전히 유효함을 확인했을 때. verified_at이 갱신되고 stale 플래그가 해제된다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the primary effects: verified_at is updated and the stale flag is cleared. Since there are no annotations, this transparency is important; it covers the main side effects without over-explaining.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the action and then state the consequences. No unnecessary words or details.
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 is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and its effects. Since an output schema exists (as indicated), return values need not be described. The description fully covers the action and its outcome.
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 only parameter, document_id, is not explicitly described in the description, but it is implied to be the identifier of the note to verify. Given the tool name and context, the meaning is clear, but a direct reference would improve clarity.
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 action: marking a note as re-verified after confirming its content remains valid. It distinguishes from sibling tools like record_note (creation) and stale_notes (listing) by focusing on the verification action.
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 a clear condition for use ('when you've confirmed the content is still valid'), which guides the agent on when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the condition is sufficient for typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.