evidence_case_file_status_update

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation. The description adds a key behavioral consequence: CLOSE means no longer accepting new evidence groups. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the state-change semantics.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then usage guidance and prerequisite. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter status update with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, key behavioral effect, and parameter provenance. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 documents caseFileId with a description and source, but status is a bare enum. The description explains the meaning of each status value ('CLOSE' vs 'OPEN'), adding semantic value that the schema lacks.

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 states a specific verb ('Changes') and resource ('case file's lifecycle status'), with explicit values (OPEN/CLOSE). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evidence_case_file_update, which handle general updates.

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 explicit when-to-use context ('Use CLOSE when work is finished... reopen with OPEN') and a prerequisite chain ('Requires: evidence_case_file_create or evidence_case_file_search → caseFileId'). This clearly guides an agent on invocation and alternatives.

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