scf_update_evidence_task

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds useful context: the editor role requirement and the fact that unspecified fields are preserved. This partial-update behavior is beyond what annotations provide, though it does not describe response or error behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys purpose, role, mutation semantics, and the affected fields without redundancy.

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 10-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral facts: what operation occurs, who is allowed, and that only passed fields change. It does not mention return value or post-update effects, but the schema's per-parameter descriptions carry most of the remaining detail.

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 fully documents all 10 parameters. The description lists the fields in prose but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema; it also loosely aliases 'type' for task_type and 'notes' for completion_notes, which could cause minor ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an evidence collection task.' It adds a role qualifier and the partial-update semantics ('Only passed fields change'), which clearly distinguishes it from scf_create_evidence_task and scf_complete_evidence_task.

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 usage through 'update' and 'only passed fields change', but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus scf_complete_evidence_task or scf_create_evidence_task, nor does it state exclusions. The intended use is inferable but not spelled out.

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