Attest intent

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

The description discloses what the action does beyond the destructiveHint annotation: approving moves the intent to pending and rejecting reverts it. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not elaborate on side effects or irreversibility.

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 sentences with no filler; the core action and state effects are front-loaded. Every clause contributes information an agent needs.

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 four-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the state precondition, the actor, and the resulting state changes. It is slightly thin on optional 'note' and any return/error behavior, but the tool is simple enough that the core usage is complete.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially: it clarifies that 'approve' is a boolean approve/reject choice and explains state outcomes. However, it does not add semantics for 'note' or 'intentId' beyond their names, and 'attestor' is already covered by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Approve or reject') and a precise resource ('an intent in attestation_required state'), and it names the exact state transition. This clearly distinguishes cims_attest from siblings like cims_cancel, cims_send, and cims_status.

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?

It explicitly scopes usage to intents in attestation_required state and identifies the actor as an institution operator. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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