agent_trust_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'update' implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or rate limits that would help the agent anticipate consequences.

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 of 10 words, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary text. Every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists (context indicates true), so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description could have added behavioral context (e.g., auth, reversibility) to make it more complete. It is adequate but minimal.

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% and the input schema already documents both parameters, including valid values for task_result with trust adjustments. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Update an Agent's trust score based on task outcome' clearly states the verb (update), resource (trust score), and trigger (task outcome). It distinguishes from siblings like agent_trust_scores (likely query) and agent_update_status (general 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?

The description implies use after a task outcome, but does not specify when not to use it (e.g., use agent_trust_scores for read-only queries) nor mention any prerequisites or alternatives among siblings.

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