verify_supplier_ffl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions a live check and write operation but lacks details on external ATE dependency, write side effects, error handling, or rate limits. Basic behavior is implied but insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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, but the second is a fragment. No superfluous words, but the structure could be improved by merging and clarifying. Still relatively concise.

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 mutation tool that performs a live external check and updates a database, the description is inadequate. It omits return values (no output schema), success/failure behavior, prerequisites (supplier existence), and any confirmation of action taken. Leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning: 'supplier_name' is contextualized as part of an FFL check, and 'confirm' is explained as the trigger for writing to the Supplier. This goes beyond the schema's default value and type.

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 clearly states the tool performs a live ATF EZ Check on a supplier's FFL and updates verification status/fields. The verb 'verify' and resource 'supplier FFL' are specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tool atf_verify_ffl, which may be similar.

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?

Only minimal guidance on the confirm parameter ('confirm=true (it writes to the Supplier)'), with no advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like atf_verify_ffl or other tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions.

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