dossier_evidence_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the DRAFT status requirement, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe other behavioral traits like irreversibility or error scenarios, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 (20 words), front-loading the primary action and then providing the condition and required parameters. No unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (4 required parameters, destructive but idempotent, no output schema), the description covers the action, precondition, and lists required params (though inaccurately). It does not explain return value or error states. Adequate for a simple deletion tool but lacks completeness on parameter details.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists required parameters as 'caseFileId, dossierId, evidenceId,' but the schema includes 'dossierEvidenceGroupId' and 'dossierEvidenceId' (not 'evidenceId'). This discrepancy is misleading and does not clarify parameter semantics. The description adds little value and potentially causes confusion.

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 name 'dossier_evidence_delete' and description 'Removes an evidence item from a dossier' clearly state the verb and resource. The status constraint (DRAFT) adds specificity. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like dossier_evidence_link or dossier_evidence_list, but the core action is clear.

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 explicitly states the precondition: 'Only available while dossier is in DRAFT status.' It also lists required parameters, providing guidance on invocation. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for similar tasks.

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