trust_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: "Unverified evidence is weighted at 50%." This adds meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like acceptance criteria, timing of score updates, or reversibility, so it is only partially transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. The second sentence lists evidence types and adds a key weighting fact. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

The tool is a simple write operation with no output schema. The description explains the purpose and types but does not mention possible responses, errors, or success indicators. While the weighting note is helpful, an agent might need to know what happens after submission, so completeness is adequate but not exceptional.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, including the enum values for 'type' and nested 'data' object. The description repeats the enum types but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: "Submit self-reported evidence to improve trust score." It gives a specific verb (submit), a resource (evidence), and its purpose (improve trust score), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like trust_verify or trust_challenge.

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 when to use the tool: when you have self-reported evidence to improve a trust score. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing with trust_verify or trust_challenge. Usage context is present but not fully elaborated.

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