mesh_trust_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the side effect (editing ~/.config/macula-mcp/contact_policy.json), the policy-switching behavior (ask -> allowlist, closed/open left as-is), the identity constraint (keyed by node_id, never operator_name or petname), and the immediate effect (file re-reads on every ring, no restart). This goes well beyond what a bare 'Add a peer to the allowlist' would convey.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, when-to-call, policy-switching behavior, identity safety rationale, and effect timing. It is front-loaded with the core action and effect. It loses one point because it is long and somewhat run-on in the middle section, but it is not bloated or redundant.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, what side effects occur, what the reply indicates, which identity type is safe, and that no restart is needed. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand the result.

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%, so the schema already documents the single node_id parameter. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains why node_id is the only safe trust boundary (verified/signed identity, while operator_name is self-reported and petname can collide), and it lists the exact sources for valid node_id values (mesh_agents, mesh_ring's `to`, mesh_answer_ring's `peer`, mesh_read_inbox's rings.pending). This is valuable semantic enrichment, though the schema already covers the basic meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource (the operator's contact-policy allowlist file), and the exact effect (next ring skips the 'ask' round-trip and is auto-accepted). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling mesh_untrust_agent by describing the inverse operation, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this once you have decided a peer is trustworthy, e.g. right after mesh_answer_ring accepted their ring, or from mesh_ring's/mesh_agents' own node_id.' It also explains when not to use it (closed/open policies are left as-is) and names the sibling mesh_untrust_agent as the inverse alternative. This is explicit routing with no inference required.

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