Apply Reputation Downgrade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about what the downgrade computes, how the ratio/default tier are used, or what the result represents. The word 'apply' sits in tension with readOnlyHint, though 'foreign' reputation plausibly implies a computed evaluation rather than a persisted write, so this is not scored as a contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good structural hygiene. However, at this level of domain complexity and schema under-documentation, the brevity crosses from concise into under-specified.

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 seven-parameter tool with 14% schema coverage, five required inputs, no output schema, and opaque domain jargon, one sentence is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis to choose correct values for any required parameter or to predict the result.

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% (one of seven parameters documented). The description provides no meaning for agent_id, origin_gateway_id, attested_tier, attested_diversity_score, downgrade_ratio, or foreign_default_tier, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap that the low coverage requires.

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?

States a specific verb (apply) and a specific resource (import policy downgrade to a foreign vouched reputation), not a tautology of the title. The domain vocabulary ('import policy downgrade', 'foreign vouched reputation') is specialized but identifies the operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby reputation siblings like update_reputation or vouch_reputation.

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 indication of when this tool should be used versus alternatives, what preconditions must hold, or what triggers a downgrade scenario. The agent must infer everything from sibling names alone.

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