apply_reputation_downgrade

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'apply ... downgrade', hinting at a mutation, but does not describe side effects, authorization needs, idempotency, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 sentence that conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error cases, or what 'downgrade' entails. Sibling tools like 'update_reputation' and 'vouch_reputation' are not differentiated, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool 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 description coverage is only 14% (only 'accept_from' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Parameters like 'downgrade_ratio' and 'foreign_default_tier' are not explained.

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 the verb 'apply' and specifies the resource as 'import policy downgrade to a foreign vouched reputation', which is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like 'vouch_reputation' or 'update_reputation'. The jargon may be dense, but the core action is clear.

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 'vouch_reputation' or 'attest_to_floor'. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or typical use cases.

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