bot_quick_trust

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that all actions are idempotent, safe to call multiple times, and that it's a write operation. It also describes the effect of each action, providing transparency about behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose up front, followed by action details and notes. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but still effective.

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 description covers all necessary information: purpose, actions with effects, parameter details (including examples), idempotence, auth requirement, and return value format. It fully compensates for the lack of output schema, making it complete for an AI agent.

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% (all parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining each action's purpose, noting that intro_text is required for intro_post, and providing examples for agent_id and actions.

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 purpose: 'Execute trust-building actions for a bot on AgentGraph to improve its trust score.' It lists the three available actions and distinguishes from sibling tools like bot_bootstrap and register_agent by noting it should be used after them.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after bot_bootstrap or register_agent to build trust quickly.' It notes idempotence and the requirement for AGENTGRAPH_API_KEY. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear.

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