writ_verify_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it names the three failure modes (expired, tampered, bound to a different purpose), states the enforcement consequence (do not execute), and defines the sequencing contract with writ_check. It does not say whether verification consumes or rotates the token, whether calls are idempotent, or what error behavior looks like, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentence, then a conditional branch, then a one-line rationale. Efficient overall, though the final 'This is the point-of-action enforcement' paragraph restates the check-versus-token distinction already made in sentence one.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the description covers timing, gating, failure handling, and sibling routing. The remaining gap is where the token comes from and how strictly verb/target strings must match the previously checked values.

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 partially — verb, target, and purpose are tied to 'the exact verb/target/purpose you intend' and the purpose-binding failure mode is explained — but it adds nothing about the auth_token's format or provenance, nor about whether verb must match the writ_verbs vocabulary.

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 ('Verify a Writ auth token against the write you are about to execute') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling writ_check by explaining the division of labor: the check authorizes, the token proves the authorization still matches.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('IMMEDIATELY before executing an ALLOWed write'), the precondition (only after an ALLOW from writ_check), the exact inputs to supply, and a when-not branch with a named fallback ('If valid is false ... do NOT execute the write; call writ_check again').

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