set_trust

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

The description adds value by revealing the side effect of mirroring onto the record's role, which is not obvious from the schema. However, with no annotations, it omits important details like reversibility, required permissions, or response behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core action and a notable side effect.

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 the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the primary action and the side effect, though it could note that it overwrites the current trust level or that it is a mutation operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add specific meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only explains the overall effect of setting the trust level.

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 ('Set') and the target ('a friend's trust level') and mentions the side effect of mirroring. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'describe_trust' which might be for reading trust levels.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or caveats. The description is purely behavioral, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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