evidence_create_sealed

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool bounded-polls until CLOSED, that task-aware MCP clients get an asynchronous Task while others get a synchronous result, and that the upstream emits no transition events, which explains the polling behavior. It also specifies the success return payload: group id, final CLOSED status, and each evidence's id + sha256.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: overview, behavioral note, prerequisite, alternative-path parameter, file contract, return shape, and explicit alternative-selection guidance. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 complex composite tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: prerequisites, alternate mode of reuse, async vs sync delivery, return shape, and when to prefer sibling tools. Combined with the fully described input schema, an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema. It clarifies that groupName and groupType apply only when creating a new group, that evidenceGroupId targets an existing OPEN group, and that the file field follows a shared FileInput contract rather than a bespoke file field.

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 composite verb chain — 'Creates (or reuses) an evidence group, registers and uploads one or more files as evidence, then seals (closes) the group' — and clearly separates this one-call flagship flow from the atomic sibling tools. It also explicitly names evidence_group_create, evidence_group_evidence_register, and evidence_group_close, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this tool for the full flow, and use the atomic sibling tools instead when you need to inspect or react to each intermediate step. It also states the prerequisite (case_file_create -> caseFileId) and explains when to supply evidenceGroupId for an existing OPEN group versus omitting it to create a new one.

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