evidence_create

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 only says the tool creates a record, which is nearly a restatement of the tool name. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, whether the operation is reversible, or the cross-company write behavior hinted at by the 'company' parameter. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core action and scope appear immediately, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a generic create operation.

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?

The description is minimally viable for selecting and invoking the tool, especially because the output schema and fully documented parameters cover return values and arguments. However, it omits useful context such as when to prefer evidence_create over evidence_batch_insert or evidence-specific create tools, and it does not surface the potentially sensitive company override behavior. These are clear gaps, so 3 is appropriate.

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%, and the schema already documents 'evidence', 'data', and 'company' with useful context, including the cross-company use case. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema carries the explanatory burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('a new record'), and a clear scope ('any AbraFlexi evidence'). This distinguishes it from evidence-specific create tools like invoice_issued_create and from batch creation tools like evidence_batch_insert, because it emphasizes generic single-record creation.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. It does not mention that dedicated create tools exist for specific evidences (e.g., contact_create, invoice_issued_create) or that evidence_batch_insert should be used for batch creation. The phrase 'any evidence' implies generality, but the agent is left to infer routing decisions.

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