endorse_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that a cryptographic chain is created, which hints at the operation's nature, but it does not disclose whether the endorsement is additive or replacing, whether it requires special permissions, whether it is reversible, or what the return value is. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 highly concise: two short sentences that convey the core purpose and mechanism. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 moderately complex with 5 parameters and no output schema. The description provides a clear purpose and the schema fully documents parameters, making it minimally viable. However, the absence of annotations, output schema, and usage guidance leaves gaps in understanding side effects, return values, and alternate tool selection, so it is not fully 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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level context beyond the schema; it does not explain the relationship enum or provide examples for scope. It offers no additional value for parameter understanding.

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 tool's function: 'Endorse an agent as a principal' with a specific verb and resource. It adds the detail 'Creates a cryptographic chain: principal → agent,' which clarifies the mechanism and distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_endorsement and revoke_endorsement.

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 implies usage (to create an endorsement) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_endorsement or revoke_endorsement. It does not mention prerequisites or the intended context for endorsing an agent.

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