add_trust_zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool adds one or more trust zones and returns a confirmation with ID(s), which implies a write operation. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like what happens on duplicate names, whether batch operations are atomic, any permission requirements, or side effects on existing architecture. The statement 'individual parameters are ignored' when items is provided is only in schema, not in the description, and the description's Args section mentions 'ctx' which is not part of the schema, adding slight confusion.

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 and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then explains single vs batch modes, followed by an Args list and Returns. The inclusion of 'ctx' in Args is slightly extraneous since it's not in the schema, but overall it is appropriately sized and every sentence contributes 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?

Given the complexity of batch support and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main usage modes, required field nuances, and return value. It does not cover edge cases like partial batch failures or duplicate handling, but the combination of schema coverage, output schema, and description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for standard operations.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that 'name' and 'trust_level' are required for single item mode, and that 'items' is a list of dicts each containing 'name', 'trust_level', and optionally 'description'. This explains the mode-dependent behavior beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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 'Adds a new trust zone' and explicitly supports batch operations via the 'items' parameter, distinguishing it from sibling tools that add other resources (e.g., add_component, add_data_store) and from update/list/delete trust zone tools. The verb 'add' is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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 explains two usage modes: single item (providing name, trust_level, and optional fields) and batch (providing a list of dicts in 'items'). This gives clear context for how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use update_trust_zone for existing zones' or 'avoid this if you need to modify existing trust zones'.

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