scf_trigger_evidence_assessment

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description carries the real behavioral burden and does it well by disclosing that this is a write operation, requires editor+ role, is asynchronous, returns a pending record, and needs polling until a final status. It adds substantial value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The primary action, access role, async nature, and follow-up polling instruction are all front-loaded and expressed in the most compact useful form. Every clause 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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description supplies the missing context: return type ('pending record'), terminal statuses to wait for, and the explicit polling path. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and handle the async lifecycle correctly.

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% and every parameter already has a meaningful description, including where to obtain IDs and the default for assessment_source. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate; it neither detracts nor compensates further.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Queue an AI assessment of a single evidence file.' It clearly distinguishes from bulk operations by emphasizing 'single', and names the companion polling tool scf_get_evidence_assessment. The write/async nature is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: it is a write, requires editor+ role, is async, and tells the agent to poll scf_get_evidence_assessment until a terminal status appears. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with bulk alternatives like scf_bulk_assess_evidence, but the 'single evidence file' constraint and polling follow-up are enough for correct usage.

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