evidence_group_discard

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Destructive' and 'deletes... registered evidences'. It adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying that only OPEN groups are discardable and that CLOSED/sealed groups are immutable, which helps the agent understand state constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and use-case, followed by a concise destructive warning and prerequisite note. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 destructive tool with full schema descriptions and strong annotations, the description covers the action, state constraints, destructive consequence, and dependency chain. It does not describe return/error behavior, but no output schema exists and delete operations commonly return a simple success status, so this is an acceptable omission.

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% with both parameters fully described, including their UUID format and provenance ('Obtain from evidence_case_file_create' and 'Obtain from evidence_group_create'). The description's 'Requires' line adds a compact dependency hint but does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discards (deletes)') naming the resource ('OPEN evidence group and its registered evidences') and the intended use ('abandon a group you no longer intend to seal'). It also distinguishes the operation from handling sealed/CLOSED groups, which separates it from related evidence_group actions.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('use to abandon a group you no longer intend to seal') and when not to ('sealed (CLOSED) groups are immutable evidence and should not be discarded'). It also gives a prerequisite chain ('Requires: caseFileId + evidence_group_create → evidenceGroupId'), but does not explicitly name alternatives like evidence_group_delete_bulk.

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