evidence_case_file_report_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies the tool only updates metadata and does not re-generate report content. This helps the agent set expectations about side effects. It does not detail behaviors like partial updates or return values, but the annotations lower the burden.

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?

Two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence covers prerequisite and exclusion without wasted words. Every clause adds value.

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 description covers purpose, prerequisite, and a key exclusion. It lacks a note about the return value (though no output schema exists) and does not explain the deletionDate parameter, but given the tool's simplicity and the provided prerequisite context, it is largely complete for agent decision-making.

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 67%: reportId and caseFileId have descriptive text, but deletionDate has no description in the schema. The description adds meaning by framing these as metadata and requiring the prerequisite relationship, but it does not explain deletionDate's semantics or that it is optional. This leaves a gap for the parameter, so the description only partially compensates for the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Updates a previously generated case-file report's metadata.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like evidence_case_file_report_generate (which generates content), evidence_case_file_report_preview, and evidence_report_delete. The scope is precisely defined.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Requires: evidence_case_file_report_generate → reportId (and the caseFileId it belongs to).' It also gives an exclusion and alternative: 'Does not re-generate the report content — generate a new report for updated evidence.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus when to use the generate tool.

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