lint_repair_verify

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

Annotations declare write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world; the description adds meaningful traits beyond that: the four rejection conditions (surviving target evidence, new actionable findings, stale reports, non-target state changes) and the 'local stdio only' environment constraint. It stops short of explaining permissions or exactly what record is written.

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 with the core action front-loaded, then the rejection semantics, then the environment caveat. Dense jargon but no wasted words.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with a nested object, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description covers the workflow and rejection rules but leaves the digest/receipt parameters and the verification outcome undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33%. The description alludes to the general_report and deep_report inputs via 'General and applicable agent-assisted Deep lint', but says nothing about manifest_id, manifest_digest, apply_receipt_digest, or next_apply, leaving most parameters to bare schema types.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Record verification for an applied lint repair', with a precondition attached (after rerunning General/Deep lint). This clearly separates it from lint_repair_prepare and lint_repair_apply, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

States the triggering condition precisely ('after rerunning complete General and applicable agent-assisted Deep lint') and lists the states that cause rejection. It gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to call it versus prepare/apply.

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