Confirm Reliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses refusal semantics, the 'never silently credited' guarantee, and the return value. However, 'mode mismatch' is undefined, and it does not state what happens on failure beyond refusal.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main action is first, followed by refusal conditions and the return value. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return shape. But the required server_version parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, and 'mode mismatch' is unexplained. An agent could struggle to invoke this correctly.

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 coverage is 67%; edge_id and accept_partial_as_relied_upon are described, but server_version has no schema description and the description does not clarify it. The description's 'partial result is refused' adds some meaning to the partial-coverage parameter, but the undocumented required parameter remains a gap.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Promote a draft reliance edge to active,' and adds the gate context 'credit-soundness gate.' This clearly distinguishes it from reliance lifecycle siblings like create_reliance, list_reliance, and delete_reliance.

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 gives a clear precondition: use this only when LLM validation returned 'valid'; partial results or mode mismatches are refused. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use X instead,' but the activation context is clear enough for correct selection.

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