bot_quick_trust

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: actions are idempotent ('safe to call multiple times'), it's a write operation requiring AGENTGRAPH_API_KEY, and it specifies the return JSON structure (executed array and readiness_after object).

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 concise yet comprehensive: three sentences cover purpose, actions, idempotency, requirements, and usage context. No redundant information; each sentence 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies the return data: 'Returns JSON with executed (array of action results with success/failure status) and readiness_after (updated overall_score 0-100 and is_ready boolean).' It also covers requirements and usage sequence.

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% with detailed descriptions. The description adds further meaning by explaining each action's effect ('boosts activity score', 'builds network connections', 'improves discoverability') and noting that intro_text is required for intro_post. Examples enhance clarity.

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 'Execute trust-building actions for a bot on AgentGraph to improve its trust score.' It lists three specific actions (intro_post, follow_suggested, list_capabilities) and differentiates from siblings like bot_bootstrap and register_agent by targeting trust improvement.

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 includes 'Use after bot_bootstrap or register_agent to build trust quickly,' providing explicit guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to alternatives, but 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.