verify_decomposition

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

The description discloses that the tool returns per-user added/removed grants and any uncovered users, with both grants needing to be empty to pass. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and does so well, though it could mention whether it modifies state (it doesn't).

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 consists of two clear, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: the first explains purpose and output, the second emphasizes the boolean nature.

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 mentions return values (added/removed grants, uncovered users) but omits details on the complex 'proposal' parameter structure and required 'snapshot_id'. Given the output schema exists, return details are less critical, but parameter guidance is lacking.

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 description does not explain the two parameters ('snapshot_id' and 'proposal') beyond what the schema shows. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide any parameter meaning or constraints.

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 tool's purpose: verifying that a proposed base-profile + permission-set/group decomposition leaves every user's effective permission set unchanged. It specifies the exact verb ('verify') and resource ('decomposition'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'propose_decomposition' and 'permission_diff'.

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 when to use: for a formal, exact check of privilege preservation. It contrasts with a 'vibe', indicating rigorous use. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternative tools for proposing or diffing permissions.

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