add_trust_boundary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return value (confirmation message with trust boundary ID(s)) and the batch override semantics. It also states it adds one or more trust boundaries to the system architecture. It doesn't cover error cases, validation, or idempotency, but for an add tool this is reasonable coverage.

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 opening sentence, a usage explanation, a compact Args list, and a Returns line. Each section adds necessary information without redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters and two modes.

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 the moderate complexity of the tool (6 parameters, single/batch modes) and the absence of annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it in both modes, parameter roles, and what the caller should expect as a return. The presence of an output schema also reduces the burden of describing return values, but the Returns line still provides useful confirmation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by framing parameters in operational terms: 'name' and 'type' are required for single-item mode, 'items' accepts a list of dicts, and individual parameters are ignored in batch mode. This clarifies how to choose between modes and how parameters interact, which is not immediately obvious from the schema alone.

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 opens with "Add a new trust boundary," which is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this from siblings like add_trust_zone, add_crossing_point, and update_trust_boundary. The first sentence immediately establishes the tool's primary purpose.

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 explicitly explains the two modes of use: single-item (provide name/type directly) and batch (via 'items'). It also clearly states that when 'items' is provided, individual parameters are ignored. While it doesn't name alternative tools like update_trust_boundary or list_trust_boundaries, the creation context is unambiguous and the batch/single guidance is highly actionable.

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