evidence_perform_action

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the mechanism (custom action via dedicated URL) but does not disclose side effects, mutation risks, reversibility, authentication needs, or failure behavior. For a tool that can perform arbitrary business actions like payments, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes an example. The contrast clause adds useful differentiation without excessive verbosity, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 tool has an output schema and fully documented parameters, which helps completeness. However, with no annotations and no description of side effects or how to distinguish from generic call tools like abraflexi_client_call, the definition leaves an agent without enough behavioral context to safely invoke arbitrary business actions.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters with useful text like 'Record ID to act on' and 'Action name (e.g., pay)'. The description adds a business example, but does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding beyond the schema, so 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 and resource: 'Perform a custom business action on a record' via a dedicated {id}/{action}.json URL, with the concrete example 'paying an invoice'. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the body-level @action attribute used by evidence_lock/evidence_storno/etc., which clearly differentiates it from those siblings.

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 provides an explicit 'as opposed to' exclusion, telling the agent that body-level @action tools like evidence_lock/evidence_storno are not the intended path here. However, it does not address overlapping generic tools in the sibling list such as abraflexi_client_call or call_user_query, leaving some selection ambiguity for an agent.

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