Promote Operator Evidence (Optional)

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

Annotations are minimal (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false). Description adds context: it's an optional operator promotion, no human operator action required for ordinary reviews, and runtime persists material durably. However, it does not fully explain side effects or permissions, but given the restricted use case, it's sufficient.

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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the warning and alternative instructions. Every part is necessary and well-structured.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage but lacks parameter details. Given that the tool is essentially restricted to operators and AI agents should not call it, the information is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter meanings or usage. For example, it doesn't clarify what `label`, `content`, or `extension` represent. This leaves the agent without critical information for correct invocation.

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 this is an operator-only tool for attaching evidence, explicitly distinguishing it from other tools by stating AI callers must not use it. Title 'Promote Operator Evidence (Optional)' reinforces 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?

Explicitly states that AI callers must not use this tool and provides clear alternatives: pass evidence through the `evidence` field of other tools like `ask_peers`, `session_start_round`, etc. This gives unambiguous usage guidance.

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