evidence_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' correctly implies mutation, but the description does not state whether id and kod are mutually exclusive, what happens when neither is given, whether the write is partial or full-replacement, or whether write access is required. This is comparable to the minimal coverage seen in other bare mutation tools.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words; the core operation and scope appear immediately. It is efficient, but arguably under-sized given the tool's six parameters and ambiguous record selectors, so it falls just short of the top score for appropriate sizing.

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 and the input schema covers all parameters, so return values and parameter semantics are handled elsewhere. However, with no annotations and a minimal description, essential context is missing: how to pick between id and kod, when to prefer this over the many sibling update tools, and what update semantics apply. The description does not compensate for the annotation gap.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting; the description's silence on parameters costs nothing extra.

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: 'Update a record in any AbraFlexi evidence.' The word 'any' signals universal evidence coverage, distinguishing it from per-evidence siblings like invoice_issued_update or contact_update, and the singular 'a record' separates it from evidence_mass_update and evidence_batch_update. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many update-like siblings (evidence_create, evidence_mass_update, evidence_batch_update, evidence_perform_action, plus per-evidence update tools), the agent gets no routing signal. The description also says nothing about how to choose between the id and kod record selectors.

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