pilot_untrust

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect of revoking trust (messages and file transfers fail) and that the action is reversible via trust re-establishment. This goes beyond the schema and gives important side-effect context.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the primary action, the second adds consequences and usage context. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and the behavioral outcome. It doesn't mention edge cases like attempting to revoke trust from a peer that is already untrusted, but the core context is complete.

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?

The schema already provides a description for the single parameter 'target' (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Revoke an existing trust relationship') and identifies the resource ('a peer'). The verb 'Revoke' is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like pilot_approve or pilot_reject, which deal with different trust states.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios ('compromised, retired, or no longer wants to receive their messages') and explains the consequence (send-message/file transfer fail until trust re-established). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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