Api evidences create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what fields get created, required auth, or side effects — and its 'viewed or edited' phrasing actively blurs the write nature of the call.

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 misleading boilerplate rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. Brevity here comes from under-specification, not 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?

For a create tool with an undescribed body payload and no output schema, the description should at minimum confirm the create semantics and what the payload represents. It supplies neither, leaving the agent to guess from the tool name alone.

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 single 'body' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of what the body should contain. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it 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 calls this an 'API endpoint that allows evidences to be viewed or edited,' which omits the actual operation (create) and instead describes read/edit capabilities. An agent cannot confidently infer this is the create-evidence tool from the text; it reads as boilerplate from the underlying viewset.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like ciso_assistant_api_evidences_update, ciso_assistant_api_evidences_upload_create, or ciso_assistant_api_evidences_batch_upload_create. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.

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