scf_evidence_task_write

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write tool, and the description corroborates that with the editor+ requirement. Beyond that it adds little: it doesn't say whether updates are partial, whether completion is reversible, or what happens on invalid state transitions – most of that lives only in the method enum's schema text.

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 tight sentences with the resource and the three operations front-loaded, followed by the dispatch instruction. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given 12 parameters.

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 polymorphic 12-parameter write tool, the schema carries the heavy lifting: per-method required fields, defaults, and UUID sourcing hints are all documented, and there is no output schema to explain. The description covers the operation set and the role gate adequately, leaving only cross-tool routing implicit.

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 100% and the method enum text already spells out per-method requirements, defaults, and field applicability. The description's only added signal is that create targets a tracking record and complete accepts notes, which is redundant with the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Manage evidence collection tasks") and enumerates the three concrete operations: create against a tracking record, update fields, and mark completed with notes. It distinguishes itself from evidence-record siblings (scf_evidence_write, scf_evidence_file_write) by naming tasks explicitly, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

It tells the agent to select an operation via the method parameter, which is genuine dispatch guidance, and notes the editor+ role prerequisite. However, it gives no when-not guidance and no routing to related tools such as scf_list_evidence_tasks for obtaining IDs or scf_evidence_write for the underlying tracking records.

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