manage_supplier_document_evidence

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 hints that Business adds team review and approval gates, which is useful context, but it says nothing about what review gates block, whether created evidence is immutable, what happens on correction, or what permissions are needed for a 29-parameter mutation 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But roughly half of the text is tier marketing and an upgrade URL that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, so the description is not as economical as it could be.

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?

This is a complex, 29-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The description gives only a one-line purpose and tier constraints, leaving the action enumeration, review/approval workflow, and correction semantics entirely unexplained. It is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 high (83%), so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric. Still, the schema descriptions are mostly placeholder defaults ("Default: \"\""), and the description adds no meaning for the required action parameter, which has no enum or description in either place. The description does not compensate for the substantive documentation gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Create and maintain controlled supplier evidence"), which is better than a tautology. However, it never explains what counts as "supplier evidence" or how this differs from closely related siblings such as manage_fair_evidence_bundle, manage_fair_registry, or manage_protection_outcomes. An agent would need to infer the domain scope.

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 only guidance is a plan-tier precondition ("Requires Kiln Business") and an upsell URL. There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no workflow context for the create-vs-maintain modes implied by the purpose.

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