vouch_reputation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: the output is a 'Signed summary' and 'no receipt history is exposed' – a notable privacy guarantee. It does not describe side effects or permission requirements, but it meaningfully goes beyond a bare mutation description.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. The second sentence adds a critical behavioral caveat without waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It gives purpose and one behavioral trait but does not explain how the signed summary is structured, what each parameter means, or how this tool relates to sibling reputation tools. The agent would need significant additional inference to use it 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 very low (17%), and the description does not compensate. It does not explain agent_id, tier, diversity_score, gateway_private_key, or gateway_id. The phrase 'Signed summary' hints that gateway_private_key is used for signing, but that is indirect. Most parameter meanings remain ambiguous.

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 'Create', the resource 'vouched reputation', and the specific purpose 'for cross-gateway portability (WS-3)'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_reputation by focusing on creation for portability rather than modification or downgrading.

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?

It clearly signals when to use this tool ('for cross-gateway portability'), giving a concrete context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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