trust__attest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'tamper-evident (hash-chained)' but omits side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or costs. For a mutation tool creating an attestation, this is insufficient to inform safe invocation.

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 one effective sentence plus a prefix. While the prefix ('trust — decay-weighted reputation + trust attestations') is somewhat extraneous, the core instruction is concise and front-loaded. It earns its place with minimal verbosity.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or usage patterns. The agent lacks enough context to confidently invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It mentions neither 'agent_id' nor 'claim' (default 'reputation-snapshot'). The agent_id is self-explanatory, but 'claim' remains ambiguous. No values, constraints, or usage hints are provided, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 'Issue a tamper-evident (hash-chained) trust attestation for an agent.' It specifies the resource (agent) and key property (tamper-evident, hash-chained), distinguishing it from sibling tools like trust__score_agent or trust__verify_attestation, which focus on scoring or verifying rather than issuing.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context for prerequisites, excluded scenarios, or comparisons with siblings such as trust__record_outcome or trust__score_agent. The description is purely definitional.

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