generate_evidence

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) without destructive or idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the SHA-256 hash requirement and detailing the semantics of custody types (INTERNAL vs EXTERNAL) and testimony providers (TSP vs DLT), which go beyond the annotations. No contradiction is present.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then systematically covers usage, requirements, and enum semantics. It is longer than some descriptions but every sentence provides useful information. The structure is clear and scannable, with the custody and testimony explanations separated by vertical bars.

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 tool with 14 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, usage alternatives, key requirements, and important enum values. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere. It does not explain every parameter, but the most critical ones are addressed, making it reasonably complete for a context-heavy tool.

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 7%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for key parameters: 'Requires the file's SHA-256 hash' clarifies the hash parameter, and it thoroughly explains custodyType and testimony enums. However, it does not explain other parameters like evidenceId, capturedAt, or requiredTestimonyProviders, leaving gaps. The added semantics are helpful but incomplete.

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 'Register a new evidence' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from evidence_group_evidence_register by noting it is not scoped to a group. It also mentions the legacy top-level nature, making the tool's purpose 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use for standalone evidence outside the group-based flow, or for continuity with the legacy EAD-Factory-MCP integration.' It also gives an explicit alternative: 'Prefer evidence_create_sealed for a new, complete evidence group + evidence + seal flow.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus related tools.

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