Api evidence revisions create

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what gets created, whether it requires authentication or specific permissions, whether duplicates are rejected, or what the response contains. 'Viewed or edited' is generic DRF boilerplate that fails to convey the create semantics.

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?

It is a single short sentence, but it is boilerplate that does not earn its place — nothing about purpose, inputs, or behavior is front-loaded. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

A mutation endpoint with an undocumented free-form body, no output schema, and no annotation-level detail about side effects. An agent has essentially no information needed to invoke it correctly beyond the tool name.

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?

There is a single 'body' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description gives no information about its shape, required fields, or expected content. With one undocumented parameter, the description must compensate and does not.

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 names the resource (evidence revisions) but describes the action as 'viewed or edited', while the tool name and endpoint are 'create'. It never states that a revision is created, and it does not distinguish this from siblings such as evidence_revisions_list, _retrieve, or _update.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other evidence_revisions endpoints (list, retrieve, partial_update, upload, delete_attachment), nor any prerequisites such as a parent evidence ID or required fields. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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