Update Evidence Checklist Item Status

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description confirms writing behavior and adds key detail: 'Every transition is appended to evidence_status_history with the operator's optional note.' This provides transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences: first identifies the tool and version, second lists actions, third provides constraints and behavioral details. No redundant words, each sentence adds value.

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 6 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers core purpose, allowed statuses, and history logging. It lacks details on error scenarios or parameter formats, but the schema provides patterns. Sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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% per context signals. The description explains the status parameter by listing the enums and notes the optional note parameter. However, it does not describe session_id, item_id, caller, or response_format. Given 6 parameters, the description adds some meaning but is incomplete.

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 starts with 'Operator workflow for the v2.7.0 Evidence Broker. Mark a checklist item as...' and lists four specific statuses, clearly distinguishing from the reserved 'addressed' status. It explicitly states the verb (mark/update) and resource (checklist item), and the context of being an operator workflow differentiates it from sibling tools.

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?

Description says explicitly that this is an operator workflow and lists the allowed statuses to set. It also clarifies that 'addressed' cannot be set via this tool. It does not mention when to use alternatives, but the sibling tools like session_attach_evidence and session_evidence_judge_pass imply different workflows. The context is clear.

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