create_trust_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('CREATE') and token prerequisite, but lacks details on idempotency, failure behavior, or what happens if the policy already exists. The information is helpful but incomplete.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every part serves a purpose: stating the action, clarifying the version (IAM v1), and noting the token requirement.

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, the description does not explain the return value or success indicators. It also does not clarify the relationship with the sibling 'create_trust_policy_mapping'. For a simple create tool, it covers the core action but leaves gaps in how to interpret results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., for 'trustPolicy', the schema already lists fields). No extra semantic guidance is provided.

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 'Create a WIF trust policy for an account', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'create_trust_policy_mapping' and other create tools by naming the policy type and scope. The inclusion of '(IAM v1, WRITE)' adds further clarity.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Requires an account-scoped platform token.' This guides usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_trust_policy or delete_trust_policy, nor does it specify exclusions.

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