scf_update_evidence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it is a write operation, requires editor+ role, performs upsert, and only applies provided fields (partial update). It does not mention rate limits or other advanced traits, but sufficiently covers the key behavioral aspects for an update tool.

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 extremely concise at 22 words across two sentences. It front-loades the purpose and immediately provides important behavioral details (upsert, role requirement, partial update). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behaviors (upsert, partial update, tracking fields scope). It could optionally mention the mandatory identifiers (evidence_id, org_id) but those are already in the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's function and behavior.

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% with each parameter already described. The description adds value by clarifying that all body fields are optional and only provided fields are applied, reinforcing partial update semantics. It also groups parameters as 'tracking fields', adding context beyond individual descriptions.

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 verb ('Upsert'), the resource ('evidence item's tracking fields'), and the action ('write — editor+ role'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like scf_create_evidence by specifying 'tracking fields' and 'upsert' behavior, making it unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is used for updating tracking fields on an existing evidence item or creating a tracking row if missing. It provides clear context for use, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like scf_create_evidence for creating a full evidence item.

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