stellar_create_trustline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating a trustline and returning a hash, but does not disclose side effects like the need for XLM reserve, potential failure conditions (e.g., account doesn't exist, invalid issuer), or that trustlines can be deleted. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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 12 words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, for a blockchain interaction tool, slightly more detail could be warranted without sacrificing conciseness. Still, it is effective and not verbose.

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 schema describes parameters well and the description mentions the return value, the tool is fairly complete for its purpose. However, it lacks context about the prerequisite for holding custom tokens, the requirement for the account to accept the asset issuer, and potential errors. Moderate completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 tool's action (create), the resource (trustline for a non-native Stellar asset), and what it returns (transaction hash). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like stellar_submit_payment or stellar_deposit_liquidity.

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 usage when one needs to trust a non-native asset, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when the asset is native or when to consider other Stellar tools. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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