stellar_tx_change_trust

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals only that this is a mutation of trustline state; it does not say whether the transaction is signed and submitted by default, what permissions/signing keys are needed, or that limit=0 destroys the trustline. Those behaviors are only hinted at in schema parameter text, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of compact completeness.

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?

This is a state-mutating transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description omits the critical operational context an agent needs: that it submits to a network by default, signing requirements, and fee defaults. For a 6-parameter mutation tool, the definition is under-specified.

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 all six parameters (including limit semantics and build_only) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb set (create, update, delete) and a specific resource (trustline for an asset), which clearly separates it from siblings like stellar_tx_payment or stellar_tx_manage_data. It does not explicitly name or contrast with an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. that the source account must exist and be funded), and no mention of alternatives or when-not to use this versus stellar_tx_set_options. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb list.

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