scf_review_evidence_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds the 410 behavior and the role requirement ('editor role'), which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe side effects like whether a rejection is final or whether revision creates a new task, but the 410 disclosure is a meaningful addition.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical exception (410) is stated immediately with the alternative tool named. Every word earns its place.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the role, and the key routing exception. It doesn't describe what the response looks like or what happens after approval/rejection, but the 410 guidance and role note make it sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly in most cases.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the role context and the 410 routing behavior, but doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Approve, reject or request revision'), a specific resource ('one uploaded file'), and the role context ('write — editor role'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling scf_review_window_assessment by noting the 410 return where per-window review is enabled. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 explicitly says 'Returns 410 where per-window review is enabled — use scf_review_window_assessment there.' This gives a concrete condition for when to use this tool versus the alternative, which is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs.

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