evidence_case_file_create

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

Beyond annotations (which are all false), the description discloses that the API does not auto-assign an id, requiring the caller to generate a UUID v4, and that 'title' is used instead of 'name.' It also reveals the relationship between the created case file id and subsequent evidence_group_create calls, adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 three concise sentences that lead with the core purpose, then provide usage ordering and the unique id rule, ending with a practical example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's role as the top-level entry point, the description covers the essential context: what it creates, when to use it, its key parameter quirks, and how it connects to the next logical tool (evidence_group_create). The presence of an output schema means return value details are handled elsewhere.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by fully explaining the critical 'id' parameter (caller-generated) and the 'title' parameter (replaces name), and provides an example. Other optional parameters (code, owner, category, metadata, description) are not detailed, but their purposes are inferable from their names and the overall context.

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 opens with 'Creates a new case file — the top-level container for evidence groups, evidence, and reports,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by noting it is the entry point to the Evidence-manager toolset and highlighting the caller-supplied id quirk.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use this first, before any other Evidence-manager tool' and states 'No prerequisites.' The description also clarifies when not to expect typical create behavior (id is caller-supplied, no name field) and gives a concrete example that ties into evidence_group_create.

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