evidence_case_file_update

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

The description adds context beyond the neutral annotations by specifying it operates on 'editable metadata' (excluding lifecycle state) and targets a single file. It does not mention partial-update semantics or return values, but the key behavioral boundaries are clear.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core action with examples, the second covers prerequisite and alternative. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema and presence of a nested metadata object, the description could explain whether omitted fields are preserved and which fields are considered editable. It provides a solid scope but leaves some behavioral details unstated.

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 low (14%), and the description's examples ('name, description') are partially misleading because 'name' is not a property (likely 'title'), and it does not explain the metadata object or other fields. The description adds minimal value over 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 clearly states it updates a single case file's editable metadata with examples, and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like evidence_case_file_update_bulk (single vs bulk) and evidence_case_file_status_update (lifecycle vs metadata).

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?

It explicitly provides a prerequisite (obtain caseFileId from evidence_case_file_create or evidence_case_file_search) and directs the agent to use evidence_case_file_status_update for lifecycle changes, offering a clear alternative and when-not-to-use context.

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