agora_create_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that `locator` is stored as-is and NEVER fetched, that provenance_level is always reference_only, and that an agent cannot self-certify Evidence as AGORA-verified. These are meaningful non-obvious traits, though it doesn't state whether the created Evidence is mutable or how it links to claims.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste, front-loading the purpose before the critical behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place by adding a distinct constraint.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers the key behavioral semantics well. However, with six parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most parameter semantics unexplained, which is a real gap for an agent constructing the call.

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%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters, yet it only adds meaning for `locator` (stored as-is, never fetched) and mentions provenance_level, which is not even a parameter. source_type, role, title, excerpt, and publisher remain entirely undocumented.

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 ('Create inert Evidence metadata') and clarifies that this only records provenance rather than verification. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like agora_get_evidence and agora_attach_evidence, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance and no condition distinguishing it from agora_get_evidence or agora_attach_evidence. An agent must infer when creating standalone Evidence is appropriate versus attaching it to a claim.

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