upload_evidence

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the return (success message with evidence ID or error) and the file provision options. However, it fails to specify side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior), permissions needed, file constraints (size, format), or behavior when both filePath and fileBytes are provided. This is adequate 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 well-structured with a title, Purpose, Args, Returns, and Note sections. Each sentence is relevant and concise, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (5 params, file upload) and the presence of sibling upload_file, the description provides enough context for correct invocation, including parameter alternatives and return format. It lacks details like size limits or duplicate handling, but is largely 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter's role and the logical grouping of filePath vs fileBytes+fileName. It does not specify formats for runId/runControlId, but the mutual exclusivity note adds significant value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Upload evidence file to ComplianceCow assessment run control' and 'Create evidence in an executed assessment run by attaching a file', specifying the verb (upload/create), resource (evidence on assessment run control), and context. It distinguishes from sibling 'upload_file' by its specific purpose.

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 clear guidance on required parameters (runId, runControlId) and the mutual exclusivity of filePath vs fileBytes+fileName via the note. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling 'upload_file', which could be clarified.

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