confirm_reliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: refusal on partial/mode mismatch, the guarantee of never silently crediting, and the return of the updated edge. It stops short of detailing permissions or side effects beyond the promotion, but the gate behavior is well covered.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the primary action and the second providing distinct, crucial behavioral constraints and return information. No filler or redundant content.

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?

The description covers the core action, the validation gate, refusal cases, and the return value. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure. Some ambiguity remains regarding accept_partial_as_relied_upon and 'mode mismatch', but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

The description does not add information about any of the three parameters. The schema already describes edge_id and accept_partial_as_relied_upon (67% coverage), and the description adds no extra semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Promote') and identifies the resource ('draft reliance edge') with a clear target state ('active'), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_reliance and delete_reliance. The parenthetical 'credit-soundness gate' adds further specificity.

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 clearly implies when to use (when LLM validation returns 'valid') and when not to use (on 'partial' or mode mismatch). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it provides clear contextual guidance for the expected workflow.

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