Import Agent Mandate

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior; the description adds context about the protocol and replay-safety but does not disclose side effects like overwrite behavior or failure modes.

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 of 23 words with no redundancy; every word contributes to the core action.

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) and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but omits key context like prerequisites, error conditions, or what happens on duplicate calls.

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 0%, and the description only names three required parameters without any detail on format, constraints, or the optional transport_binding, leaving agents to infer semantics from names.

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 specifies the action 'import' and resource 'signed AgentMandateV1', and distinguishes this from sibling verification tools like paybond_verify_agent_mandate_v1 by noting the gateway protocol and binding to an intent.

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?

Usage is implied (after obtaining a signed mandate and recognition proof, bind to an intent), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., verify first), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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