person_verify

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: values are not changed (so it is a metadata-only mutation despite readOnlyHint=false), the operation is all-or-nothing with unknown fields rejecting the call, and a failed check is recorded by simply not stamping. It does not cover idempotency on repeat stamps or permission requirements.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler. The opening phrasing 'Stamp where fields on a person card as checked' is grammatically awkward but still compact.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it discloses the mutation scope, atomicity/error behavior, and the negative case (failure = no stamp). Missing only repeat-call idempotency and permission context, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the verified_at default of now and the optional nature of source, but says nothing about slug semantics or the meaning of 'where field names' beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: stamp 'where fields on a person card' as checked, setting verified_at and source. It is clearly distinct from value-mutating siblings like person_write, though it never names the closest analog knowledge_verify to disambiguate.

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?

Usage is implied (call it after a field has been checked) but the description never states when to prefer this over person_write or knowledge_verify/person_write alternatives, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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