scf_create_evidence

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a write and that it starts tracking, but it does not discuss side effects, authentication details beyond role, idempotency, error states, or what happens on duplicate evidence_id.

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 two sentences, free of fluff, and front-loads the core action. Every word 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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created record ID), how tracking works, or the impact of optional parameters. The tool's complexity demands more context.

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?

All 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information; it only references evidence_id implicitly. It does not clarify the meaning or usage of optional parameters like owner or frequency.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'evidence tracking record', and the source 'from a catalog evidence ID'. It also specifies the role requirement 'editor+'. This distinguishes it from siblings like scf_update_evidence by implying creation vs. 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?

The description indicates when to use (to create a new tracking record) and implies a prerequisite (need a catalog evidence ID from scf_list_evidence_catalog). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives such as scf_update_evidence for modifying existing records.

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