evidence_group_update

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: the OPEN-only constraint and immutability of sealed groups. It also clarifies the ID acquisition flow. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description (updating metadata is non-destructive but write-oriented). No contradiction detected.

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 core action and then constraints. Every clause adds value: the action, the OPEN-state caveat, and the prerequisite chain. There is no redundant fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 tool with 7 parameters, a nested object, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key constraints but leaves ambiguity about which fields are editable and how metadata should be structured. The output schema exists, but since it's not shown, the description should better clarify parameter roles, especially for optional fields like createdBy and metadata. Overall, it's adequate for selection but not for full invocation without additional inference.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'e.g. name, description' and doesn't explain the semantics of code, metadata, or createdBy. It also fails to clarify whether createdBy is actually editable, given the description says 'editable metadata' while schema lists createdBy as a property. The required IDs are described in the schema, but the description adds little beyond a dependency hint.

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: 'Updates an evidence group's editable metadata' with specific examples (name, description). It identifies the resource (evidence group) and scope (editable metadata), distinguishing it from sealing or discarding operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the bulk update sibling.

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 provides a clear when-to-use condition: 'Only meaningful while the group is OPEN — sealed groups are immutable,' which also serves as a when-not-to-use. It also gives a prerequisite chain: 'Requires: caseFileId + evidence_group_create → evidenceGroupId,' helping the agent understand dependencies, but it does not mention alternative tools like evidence_group_update_bulk.

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