dossier_create

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (creation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: generate UUID v4 for id, returns dossierId, and mentions post-creation steps. There is no contradiction with annotations, and disclosures are helpful beyond structured fields.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, prerequisites, parameter guidance, return value, and follow-up actions.

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 11 parameters and a multi-step workflow, the description covers the essential narrative (prerequisites, creation, subsequent linking and certification). It mentions the return value dossierId. Could detail more parameters, but provides enough for an agent to understand the tool's role in the process.

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 has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds specific meaning for 'id' (UUID v4 format) and 'caseFileId' (from case_file_create), but does not explain other required parameters like name, language, validityFrom, validityTo. Partial compensation 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 the tool creates a dossier to aggregate certified evidence groups into a tamper-evident PDF. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by outlining a sequential workflow involving case_file_create, dossier_evidence_link, and dossier_certify.

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 clear context for use: requires a prior case_file_create to obtain caseFileId, and evidence groups must be CLOSED before linking. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the workflow guidance effectively differentiates from alternatives like dossier_update or dossier_delete.

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