wisdom_trust_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the trust expression is persisted, whether it overwrites prior trust, what the side effects are, or any authorization requirements. The verb 'express' hints at a write operation, but important behavioral traits are omitted.

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 short sentence with no filler or repetition. The core action is front-loaded and easy to parse. While it is under-specified, that issue is better captured under contextual completeness; from a conciseness standpoint it is efficient.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to fully guide invocation. It does not explain the effect of the operation, the meaning of the confidence parameter in context, or what the agent should expect in return. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 parameters like target_agent and trust_level are already well documented. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema supplies. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Express') and resource ('another agent'), making the core action clear. It is not a tautology, and it contrasts with sibling tools like wisdom_calculate_trust, which imply computation rather than expression. However, it stops short of saying what 'express trust' concretely does (e.g., records a trust assessment), so it lacks the full specificity of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wisdom_calculate_trust or wisdom_vote_on_fragment. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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