dossier_evidence_link

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds that it can be called multiple times for different case files, which aligns with non-idempotency. However, it does not disclose what happens on duplicate calls with the same IDs or any side effects beyond linking.

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 concise with three sentences, but it misses the required parameter 'caseFileToLinkId', which is a notable omission. It is front-loaded with purpose and prerequisites, but the incomplete parameter coverage detracts from structure.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (4 required params, no enums), the description should explain return behavior and the relationship between caseFileId and caseFileToLinkId. It lacks any mention of what the tool returns or the state change after linking, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 compensate. It explains 'ids' as an array of evidence UUIDs, but fails to mention 'caseFileToLinkId', a required parameter. This omission leaves ambiguity about the parameter's role, and no other parameters are explained beyond their names in prerequisites.

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 (linking evidence items to a dossier) and context (from a sealed group). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like dossier_evidence_list or dossier_evidence_delete by mentioning prerequisites and the linking operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools.

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 lists prerequisites (dossierId from dossier_create, sealed evidence, caseFileId from case_file_create) and notes that the tool can be called multiple times for evidence from different case files, providing clear context on when to use it. It does not specify when not to use it or alternatives, but the prerequisites effectively guide usage.

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