scf_revalidate_evidence_file

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

With no annotations, the description conveys that this is a write operation and lists the checks performed. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements beyond role, or whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous.

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 brief and front-loaded: two sentences clearly state the action, required role, checks, and return value, with no unnecessary words.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it checks but omits details like expected output format, error conditions, asynchronicity, or prerequisites beyond role.

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 schema already documents parameter meanings. The description adds no new parameter information beyond listing general checks, achieving baseline adequacy.

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 tool re-runs validation on an evidence file, listing specific checks (catalog existence, content type, etc.). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar sibling tools like scf_get_evidence_validation or scf_trigger_evidence_assessment.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'editor+ role' for write access but lacks context for appropriate scenarios.

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