scf_revalidate_evidence_file

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false. The description adds the editor+ role requirement, the list of validation checks, and that an updated result is returned. It does not fully specify whether prior results are overwritten, but the added context goes beyond what annotations already provide.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the role requirement, the validation scope, and the return value. The write behavior is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description provides the key operational facts: authorization, validation dimensions, and the updated result. It is not fully exhaustive about error conditions or return shape, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 descriptions already cover all three parameters at 100%, including how to obtain org_id, evidence_id, and file_id from sibling tools. The description adds conceptual context but does not need to repeat parameter details.

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 names the exact operation ('Re-run the validation engine'), the target ('an evidence file'), and the write nature with a role requirement. It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like scf_get_evidence_validation.

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 role restriction ('write — editor+ role') and the 're-run' verb imply this is the mutating counterpart to validation getters, but no explicit alternative or 'when not to use' condition is stated. An agent can infer the use case, but routing is left to inference.

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