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

Annotations already flag this as a mutating, destructive, idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds non-obvious behavioral context: the tool only records an unreviewed metadata description, and file content/upload-related data must go through a separate transport. It could say more about the destructive side effect, but the annotations already surface that risk.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the critical upload-transport constraint is stated immediately afterward.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description leaves concrete side effects and return behavior unstated, and it does not name the upload transport tool. The rich schema and annotations make the tool usable, but the description alone is not fully self-sufficient.

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 low (33%), and the description only partially compensates: 'unreviewed' maps to the status=missing_review default, and 'version description' clarifies the version object is metadata-only. It does not explain evidenceId or the meaning of the other version fields, so the agent must rely on the schema for those.

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 action ('Record') on a specific resource ('unreviewed evidence version description'), and the phrase 'version description' plus 'unreviewed' distinguishes this from file-upload and evidence-creation tools. The purpose is clear even within a large sibling list.

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 second sentence provides one useful exclusion: file upload, hashes, and storage references require the dedicated upload transport. However, it does not name a sibling tool or explicitly state when to choose this over create_evidence or upload-related alternatives, so usage conditions are mostly implied.

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