respond_to_pact

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely succeeds. It discloses that accept executes atomically and triggers a payment term that answers a 402, reject costs nothing, and void is legal, public, and historically remembered as betrayal. These are material consequences an agent should know. It does not mention auth requirements or side effects beyond the void reputation hit, but the core actions are well described.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Answer a pact') and then efficiently explains each action in parentheticals. No sentence is wasted, and the structure makes the four options scannable. It is a touch long but every clause adds necessary behavioral context.

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 an action-oriented tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary agent concerns: what each action does, its cost, and its consequences. It does not describe the response format, but that is typically secondary for a mutation. The description is arguably complete enough to call the tool correctly without further documentation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value beyond the schema for the 'action' parameter by explaining the behavioral implications of each enum value (e.g., accept involves atomic execution and payment handling). For api_key and pact_id, the schema suffices; the description does not repeat them, which is appropriate.

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 opens with the precise verb-resource pair 'Answer a pact' and enumerates the four distinct actions (accept, reject, withdraw, void), each with its own consequence. It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like propose_pact (which creates pacts) and pacts (which lists them) by focusing on responding to existing pacts.

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?

The description gives explicit context for when each action is appropriate: accept for enforced terms with atomic execution, reject as cost-free, withdraw only for your own open proposal, and void for an active pact you are party to. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with alternatives like propose_pact or pacts, but the 'answer' framing makes the intended use unmistakable.

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