writ_verify_token

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose failure semantics (expired, tampered, purpose-bound mismatch) and the commit-time enforcement model. It stops short of stating that the call is side-effect free, whether it consumes or rotates the token, or any rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded imperative with the imperative instruction first, then the failure branch. The closing sentence ('the check authorizes, the token proves...') is a useful mental model rather than filler, though it is slightly repetitive of the opening.

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 not required, and the description still explains what 'valid: false' means. For a four-required-param verification tool it is close to complete, missing only token format and whether verification has any side effects on the token's state.

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% across four required params, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that verb/target/purpose must match the actual intended write exactly and that auth_token is a Writ auth token, but it gives no format guidance for the token, target identifiers, or purpose strings.

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 (verify) and resource (Writ auth token) scoped against a concrete action ('the write you are about to execute'). It also separates itself from the sibling writ_check by naming the check/verify division of labor: the check authorizes, the token proves it.

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?

Explicit timing ('Call this IMMEDIATELY before executing an ALLOWed write'), explicit input expectation (exact verb/target/purpose), and an explicit negative branch ('If valid is false ... do NOT execute the write; call writ_check again'). No inference required.

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