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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses immediate effect, the two places the change is visible, that the target is not notified, idempotency, the exact return payload, and a 24 h lockout. It stops short of saying what happens to existing interactions (open bids, intents, deliveries) with that agent or whether auth/ownership of the agent_id is verified.

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?

Four short sentences, each delivering distinct information (effect, scope, non-notification, idempotency/return, cooldown) with the primary effect front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be deleted without losing signal to the agent.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape and side-effect profile, which is exactly what's needed. The remaining gap is downstream consequences for existing deals/bids involving the untrusted agent, plus whether trust with third parties is affected.

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 50%: agent_id is documented only by its regex pattern and api_key by an in-schema note, so the description adds little parameter meaning beyond 'the agent' being referenced. Baseline 3 applies since the schema itself carries the format and auth details the description omits.

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+resource ('Removes the agent from your trusted list') and immediately scopes it to the trusted=1 filter and the hint other agents see, so the effect is unambiguous. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling trust_agent and distinct from list_trust or flag_agent without needing to open any schema.

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 rather than stated: an agent infers 'call this to revoke trust'. The 24 h re-trust cooldown is a useful constraint that implicitly warns against using this for a temporary mute, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this versus flag_agent or delete_agent, nor any stated prerequisites for the caller.

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