arbitration__set_trust_scores

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the action (attach scores) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwrites existing scores), idempotency, access control, or whether the action is reversible. The 'deterministic' mention is vague.

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, using a single sentence with a bracketed context prefix. It is front-loaded with the domain. However, it could be slightly more structured to improve readability, such as separating the action from the context.

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 no output schema and nested parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value or effect after attaching scores, nor does it cover edge cases or constraints (e.g., number of parties allowed). A more comprehensive description is needed for a tool that modifies state.

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 0%. The description adds meaning for the 'scores' parameter (party -> [0,1]) but does not explain 'case_id'. The nested object structure is mentioned but not elaborated. More detail is needed to clarify the format and constraints of each parameter.

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 attaches trust-oracle reputation scores as ruling inputs in arbitration. It specifies the score range [0,1] and the context of deterministic dispute rulings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rule' or 'file_case' by focusing on inputting scores rather than making rulings or submitting evidence.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trust__score_agent or other arbitration tools. The description implies it is for attaching scores during arbitration but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., case must exist) or when not to use it.

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