fsv_verify_ownership

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the gating precondition, that check=false is a read-only instruction-producing call, and that check=true has a side effect ("records the proof"). It does not cover failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the record is absent or not yet propagated) or any 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the purpose and gating condition front-loaded before the mode breakdown. Every clause carries information the schema does not.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary; the description instead supplies exactly the missing pieces — the deployment gating and the two-call workflow. Nothing critical for a correct invocation is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the semantics of both check values (publish-then-verify) rather than just echoing the names. The host parameter is only inferable from context and never explicitly described as the target being proved.

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?

"Prove control of a host" is a specific verb+resource, and the description immediately situates it as a precondition for payload-sending scans, which separates it from sibling scan/report tools like fsv_scan and fsv_get_report.

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 states the triggering condition explicitly (FSV_REQUIRE_VERIFICATION=1) and describes the two-step workflow via the check flag, so an agent knows when this tool is required. It stops short of naming a when-not case or pointing to a sibling for the case where no verification is needed.

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