evidence_group_create

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: requiring UUID generation, specific evidenceType values, returning evidenceGroupId, and noting that a group can hold multiple records. Annotations are readOnlyHint=false, consistent with a create operation. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, prerequisite, specific instructions, and behavior. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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 create tool with no output schema and 6 parameters, the description covers core functionality and key parameters. It omits the attestation and description fields but provides enough for basic usage. Missing some detail for optional fields.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains id (generate UUID), evidenceType (enum values), caseFileId (from case_file_create), but omits description and attestation fields. Partial coverage leaves some parameters unexplained for a 6-param tool.

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 explicitly states the action ('Creates an evidence group') and the resource ('inside a case file'), with specific requirements and return value. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like evidence_create by explaining that this creates a group for multiple evidence records.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires: case_file_create → caseFileId') and explains the tool's role as a container for multiple evidence records. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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