remove_trust_boundary

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

The description discloses a key behavior: it creates a new model version. However, with no annotations provided, it does not address other important traits such as required permissions, irreversibility, cascading effects on associated entities, or the nature of the output. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the primary action. There is no redundant information; every word adds value.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It mentions the creation of a new model version, which is important. However, it lacks details about side effects, error conditions, or constraints. For a removal tool with three required parameters, the description is minimally adequate.

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 67% parameter description coverage (tb_id and model_id have descriptions, server_version does not). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented 'server_version' parameter.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'trust boundary'. It also adds that it creates a new model version, providing additional context. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'add_trust_boundary' and 'edit_trust_boundary', but does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 such as 'edit_trust_boundary' or 'remove_asset'. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or any context that helps the agent decide.

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