evidence_storno

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It reveals that the tool mutates state by cancelling a record, but does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, audit/accounting implications, or the effect of cancelling in different evidencies. 'Any evidence' broadens scope but adds no guardrails.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the core action and object appear first. It is admirable concise, though the terseness contributes to missing usage guidance.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but this is a mutating tool with no annotations and multiple was to identify a record (id vs kod). The description does not clarify whether id or kod is required/preferred, what preconditions apply to storno in AbraFlexi, or what success looks like.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters (evidence, id, kod) with descriptions and an example evidence name, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about how id and kod relate or which identifier should be suppiled.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel (storno)') and a defined resource ('document record in any AbraFlexi evidence'), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like evidence_delete or evidence_perform_action, relying on the domain-specific term 'storno' to imply distinction.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool vs evidence_delete, evidence_perform_action, or evidence_uplate. The description only states what the operation does, leaving the agent to infer its place among the siblings.

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