validate_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by detailing rejection conditions, single-use token burning, and the side effect of fossilizing the execution. It could mention return/error formats, but the key behaviors are transparent.

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 concise sentences deliver the core purpose, conditions, and side effects without wasted words. The most important invocation context is 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers invocation context, parameter relationships, failure conditions, and side effects well. Only minor gaps remain, such as the exact structure of success/error responses.

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 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does: token is bound to action_type, artifact, and targets; tokens expire after 60 seconds; and successful validation burns the token. This adds semantic meaning beyond bare parameter names, though exact formats or enums are not specified.

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 identifies the tool as validating a token to authorize a real action, using a specific verb and resource. The detailed rejection criteria and single-use behavior distinguish it from generic verification tools like verify.

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 explicitly states the caller ('the executor') and the purpose ('to authorize a real action'), giving clear context for when it should be invoked. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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