recalculate_trust_scores

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the behavior: it recalculates trust scores based on listed factors with weights, and includes access control (admin only). It does not mention synchronicity or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two-sentence description is packed with information: action, factor breakdown, default behavior, and access control. Every sentence is necessary and succinct, with no wasted words.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, how it works, default behavior, and who can call it. A minor gap is the lack of mention of whether the recalculation is synchronous or asynchronous, but that is not critical for selection.

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% for the single optional parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining that omitting agent_id triggers recalculation for all agents, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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's purpose: manually triggering trust score recalculation. It explains the multi-factor calculation with specific weights, distinguishing it from related tools like 'set_trust_score' and 'score_applied_strategies'.

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 provides guidance on when to use the tool: optionally specify an agent_id or omit to recalculate all. It also notes that only admins can call it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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