Vorim AI — Agent Identity & Trust

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional expiry and rate limits, which hints at mutation and constraints, but fails to specify critical details: whether this operation is idempotent, what permissions are required to execute it, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid agent_id), or the response format. For a permission-granting tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Grant a permission scope to an agent') and appends optional features concisely. There is no wasted language, and it's structured to immediately convey the primary function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a permission-granting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., idempotency, error handling), usage context compared to siblings, and what the tool returns upon success or failure. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying that 'valid_until', 'rate_limit_max', and 'rate_limit_window' are optional enhancements, but doesn't explain their interactions or provide examples (e.g., format of 'scope'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have elaborated on parameter relationships.

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 action ('Grant') and resource ('permission scope to an agent'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vorim_check_permission' (checking) and 'vorim_revoke_permission' (revoking) by focusing on granting. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a 'permission scope' entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'vorim_delegate_credential', leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., agent must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot grant overlapping scopes), or compare to siblings like 'vorim_delegate_credential' for credential-based permissions. Without such context, an agent might misuse it in inappropriate scenarios.

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