add_attestation

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

The description indicates a mutation (add), but provides no further behavioral details. With no annotations present, the description should disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. It lacks context such as whether the attestation overwrites duplicates, whether the anchor is modified, or any auth requirements.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is not overly verbose, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. A slightly longer description with parameter hints would be more useful while still being concise.

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 tool has 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, return value, or behavior beyond the basic action. The agent cannot infer correct usage from this alone.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning to the parameters. Parameters like confidence, evidence, and api_key remain unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent guessing their purpose and format.

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 states the action: add an attestation (claim) to an existing trust anchor. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_trust_anchor which creates a new anchor, and revoke_trust which revokes trust.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., anchor must exist) or when not to use it. The description implies the anchor must exist but does not state this explicitly or suggest checking with other tools.

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