Update Reputation Metrics

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), which aligns with the 'Update' action. The description adds context about the reputation and trust flow and the need for stable metadata, providing useful behavioral insight beyond annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, each providing essential information: what the tool does, its context, and usage guidance. No filler or redundant information, front-loaded with purpose.

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 explains the tool's role in the reputation system and references the SAP MCP context. With good schema and annotation coverage, plus an output schema, the description is mostly complete. A minor gap is the lack of detail on post-update effects or persistence, but overall adequate.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (avgLatencyMs and uptimePercent). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Update' and the specific resource 'self-reported latency and uptime metrics' for the connected wallet SAP agent. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on reputation metrics, not other actions like fetching or creating attestations.

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 advises to use the tool after verifying the target agent PDA or wallet and emphasizes keeping hashes/attestation metadata stable and auditable. This provides practical guidance, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternative tools.

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