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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It usefully discloses that prior revisions are retained, suggesting non-destructive versioning, but it does not mention optimistic concurrency via expectedVersion, idempotency behavior, or what 'revoke' changes about the trust. This is partial but not complete transparency.

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 sentence with no filler; every phrase adds information ('Replace or revoke', 'your personal trust', 'retaining prior revisions'). It is front-loaded and efficient, making the core action immediately clear.

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 a nested revision object with required idempotencyKey and expectedVersion, the 12-word description leaves too much unstated: how to express replace vs revoke, the role of expectedVersion, and why an idempotency key is needed. With no output schema or annotations, an agent would still be guessing about important call semantics.

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%, and the description does not explain id, revision, idempotencyKey, or the nested fields. It only hints at value/revoked through 'replace or revoke'; expectedVersion, reason, and evidenceIds remain undeveloped. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 names the exact operation ('Replace or revoke') and target ('your personal trust'), and adds the distinguishing outcome 'retaining prior revisions,' so it clearly differentiates from siblings like create_trust. It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's core purpose in a specific way.

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 implies the tool is for modifying or revoking an existing personal trust, but it never names alternatives such as create_trust or states when this tool should not be used. There are also no prerequisites or exclusion conditions, so usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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