Import Agent Mandate

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotence. The description adds value by specifying the 'replay-safe recognition proof' mechanism and the 'gateway v2 protocol surface', providing behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not explain failure modes or authorization requirements.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It uses precise terminology without excess verbiage. Every part of the sentence contributes 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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, binding process) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on side effects, success/failure outcomes, or idempotency implications. It provides the core purpose but not a complete picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains signed_mandate, intent_id, and recognition_proof by linking them to the domain terms 'signed AgentMandateV1', 'Harbor intent', and 'replay-safe recognition proof'. The transport_binding parameter is not mentioned, but the three required parameters are well 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'import', the resource 'AgentMandateV1', and the binding to a 'Harbor intent' using a 'replay-safe recognition proof'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_agent_mandate_v1 which focus on verification rather than import and binding.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., intent must exist), exclusion criteria, or when not to use it. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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