evidence_group_create

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

Annotations carry little weight (all false), so the description must disclose behavior. It does so by noting the caller-supplied id (non-idempotent), the returned status 'OPEN', and the sequencing with other tools. However, it omits details like error conditions or side effects, but the provided operational flow is valuable.

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 somewhat long but each sentence adds value, including a concrete example and workflow steps. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides operational details, though it could be slightly more concise without losing meaning.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description gives sufficient context: creation context, prerequisite, example, and next steps. It doesn't fully explain all return values, but the essential lifecycle is clear.

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 only 13%, and the description compensates by explaining the required parameters: id ('generate a fresh UUID v4 yourself'), caseFileId (from evidence_case_file_create), and type (example 'FILE'). It doesn't explain optional parameters like name or metadata, but the mandatory ones are clarified.

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 'Creates an evidence group inside a case file,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the legacy generate_evidence tool and mentioning evidence_group_evidence_register and evidence_group_close for the workflow.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when starting a new batch of related evidence (e.g. all files for one incident).' It also gives prerequisites (evidence_case_file_create → caseFileId) and a sequential workflow with evidence_group_evidence_register and evidence_group_close, effectively explaining alternatives and exclusions.

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