Endorse Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral fact, that a cryptographic chain is created, but omits consequences of the non-idempotent hint (repeat calls mint separate endorsements), default expiry behavior, and required authority.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the concrete side effect. No filler; borderline minimal, but every clause carries meaning.

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?

A mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema needs to convey prerequisites and result shape. The description names the chain effect but says nothing about what the endorsement enables afterward, whether the principal must pre-exist, or what happens on expiry, leaving real gaps.

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 100%, so all five parameters including the relationship enum and scope semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (endorse) and resource (agent as principal), plus the concrete effect: creating a cryptographic chain principal → agent. Clear enough to distinguish from revoke_endorsement and verify_endorsement by intent, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the principal or agent needing to already exist. The agent must infer that verification happens via verify_endorsement and removal via revoke_endorsement.

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