evidence_group_close

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

The annotation indicates non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) but no destructive flag. The description goes beyond annotations by revealing the async state machine (OPEN → CLOSING → CLOSED), the need to poll evidence_group_get, and the irreversible consequence ('no more evidence can be added'). This adds valuable behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: main action, precondition, required inputs, async behavior, and alternative tool. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity of the tool (state transitions, prerequisites, async polling), the description covers all essential aspects: what happens, when to use, what to do after invocation (poll until CLOSED), and a simpler alternative. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, so this is complete.

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 50% (only caseFileId and evidenceGroupId have descriptions). The description adds meaning for evidencesCount as 'the current evidencesCount' and explains the provenance chain for the IDs. However, collectMetadata is not mentioned at all, leaving its semantics unexplained. Overall, the description partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 the action: 'Seals (closes) an evidence group, triggering qualified timestamping — after this, no more evidence can be added.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like evidence_group_discard or evidence_group_update by emphasizing the sealing aspect.

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?

Explicit usage conditions are given: 'Use only after every evidence registered in the group has had its file bytes uploaded to the presigned URL from evidence_group_evidence_register.' It also names an alternative ('Prefer the evidence_create_sealed composite tool') and lists required dependencies, providing clear when-to-use and when-to-avoid guidance.

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