agora_attach_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether attaching is reversible (sibling agora_retract_claim exists), whether duplicates are allowed, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure — significant gaps for a mutation 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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and the role values parenthetically enumerated. No waste, though it is minimal rather than optimally informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a write operation with no annotations, the definition omits reversibility, validation, and failure behavior, leaving the agent under-equipped.

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 0%, and the schema declares role as a bare string with no enum. The description usefully supplies the role vocabulary (supports, contradicts, context, method, background), which is the key semantic gap. However, claim_id and evidence_id are not clarified beyond their self-evident names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Attach existing Evidence to a Claim') and enumerates the relationship roles. Clear purpose, but it does not distinguish itself from the adjacent create_evidence / get_evidence siblings, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Attach existing Evidence' weakly implies this is for already-created evidence rather than new evidence (hinting at create_evidence as the alternative), but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or exclusion guidance. Usage is left largely to inference.

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