scf_create_evidence_task

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the editor-role authorization requirement and the fact that the task is attached to a tracking record, which is useful behavioral context 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the critical facts (role, required fields, defaults) with no fluff.

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 9-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers core invocation facts but omits what the call returns, how to handle errors, and relationship to related evidence-task tools. The rich parameter schemas compensate partially.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the required parameters and defaults already present in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond highlighting them as key.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a manual evidence collection task against a tracking record') and clarifies it is a write operation requiring editor role. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as scf_create_evidence or scf_update_evidence_task.

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?

Usage context is implied: this is the tool for manually creating an evidence task, and the editor-role note restricts who should call it. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tools such as scf_list_evidence_tasks or scf_update_evidence_task.

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