verify_change

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions validating constraints and running test commands, hinting at side effects, but does not state whether test commands are read-only, what happens on failure, or if it modifies state. More transparency on behavioral traits is needed.

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 with two sentences, efficiently conveying the primary action and additional details. No unnecessary words. Slightly better than average but could be more structured.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the overall purpose but does not explain the relationship between plan and plan_json, or the role of evidence_refs. Complete enough for basic understanding but not for nuanced usage.

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% with parameter descriptions that are self-explanatory. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: verifying changes against a saved plan. The verb 'verify' and the resource 'diff/changed files against plan' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_patch or plan_change by focusing on verification against an existing plan.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. The description implies use when a pre-edit plan exists, but does not mention when not to use or compare to sibling tools like validate_patch. Sibling names suggest overlapping functionality, so lack of guidance is a gap.

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