trust_identity

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

The description only states the high-level action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to provide sufficient detail.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is well-structured, earning its place without redundancy.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain the result or side effects of trusting the identity. It does not indicate whether a success message or error is returned, nor does it cover potential failure modes. The description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not add significant meaning beyond what is already provided. It reiterates the idea of verifying the safety number but does not elaborate on format or constraints.

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 action 'trust' on a 'contact's identity key' and ties it to verifying a safety number. It is specific enough to understand the tool's function, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_identities' or 'block_contact'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., verifying the safety number beforehand) or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision context.

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