arbitration__set_trust_scores

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

No annotations provided, so description alone must disclose behavior. It indicates a write operation ('attach') but does not mention idempotency, overwrite semantics, prerequisites (e.g., case must exist), or side effects. Only the score range is specified.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus domain bracket. No redundant words. Front-loaded with context and action. Every part adds 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?

Gives a reasonable overview of function but lacks operational details like return value (no output schema), error conditions, or lifecycle context. For a simple mutation with nested objects, more information would be helpful but not severely deficient.

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 partially explains the 'scores' parameter (party->[0,1]) but does not describe 'case_id' at all. Leaves meaning of both parameters incomplete, especially for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

Clearly states verb 'attach' and resource 'trust-oracle reputation scores', specifies party->[0,1] range. Distinct from sibling arbitration tools (file_case, rule, etc.) which have different purposes. Domain bracket adds context.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Implies usage before a ruling but does not contrast with other arbitration tools like rule or submit_evidence. Lacks alternative recommendations.

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