apply_reputation_downgrade

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'apply downgrade', which restates the tool's name and implies a mutating action, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what changes occur to the reputation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words, which is efficient. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, sacrificing useful detail for compactness.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides an inadequate foundation for invoking the tool correctly. It lacks parameter semantics, return-value expectations, side effects, and any behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 only 14% (only accept_from has a description). The description does not explain any of the seven parameters, such as attested_tier, attested_diversity_score, downgrade_ratio, or foreign_default_tier, nor how they relate to the downgrade logic. It fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 ('Apply') and names the resource ('import policy downgrade' to 'foreign vouched reputation'), which makes the purpose clear and distinguishes it from generic tools like update_reputation. However, the phrasing is jargon-heavy and does not explicitly enumerate differentiation from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_reputation or vouch_reputation. The phrase 'foreign vouched' implies an import-policy context, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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