ledger_log_verdict

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it returns a dict with 'ok' and 'task', and raises ValueError for invalid dispatch_id or verdict. It does not contradict annotations, and the idempotent hint is neither repeated nor undermined.

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 well-structured with a clear one-sentence summary followed by Args, Returns, and Errors sections. It is concise for the amount of information it conveys; every sentence adds value, including error behavior and the return shape.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description is complete: it covers when to use it, all parameters, allowed values, return value, and error cases. The relationship to ledger_log_dispatch is explicit, making the tool's context within the ledger family clear. An output schema exists, but the description's Returns section still adds value by specifying the exact keys.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully with an Args section that explains each parameter. It even lists the exact allowed values for 'verdict' ('CONFIRMED', 'REFUTED', 'PARTIAL') which the schema does not provide as an enum. It also clarifies that 'notes' is optional and that dispatch_id comes from ledger_log_dispatch.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a verification verdict to a previously logged dispatch.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like ledger_log_dispatch (which logs the initial dispatch) and ledger_log_approach (which logs an approach). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: 'Use this after independently verifying a subagent's work.' It also references ledger_log_dispatch as the source of dispatch_id, establishing a clear prerequisite. It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not scenarios, but the usage context is clear enough to avoid confusion with siblings.

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