update_trust_boundary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'updates' but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, behavior when the boundary does not exist, or whether omitted fields are left unchanged. The batch behavior is already described in the schema, so the description adds little new safety context.

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, mode explanation, an Args list, and Returns. It is slightly repetitive of the schema descriptions, but remains readable and front-loaded with the most important information about batch vs single operation.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers usage modes and the return value ('A confirmation message'), but lacks information on error handling, idempotency, and safety. It is adequate for a tool with fully documented schema parameters, but not fully comprehensive.

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 by explaining mode-specific requirements (e.g., id required for single item mode, items for batch) and noting that batch ignores individual parameters. However, it also lists a 'ctx' parameter that is not present in the input schema, which adds confusion and slightly detracts from 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 opens with 'Update an existing trust boundary,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further explains single vs batch modes, and the entity being updated (trust boundary) clearly distinguishes it from sibling update_* tools for other entity types.

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 gives clear context for usage: 'For single item: provide id and fields to update directly. For batch: provide a list of trust boundary dicts in the items parameter.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but it clearly explains the two operational modes.

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