dossier_create

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

Annotations are neutral (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and the description adds useful behavioral context: it's a creation step requiring closed evidence groups and returns dossierId. It does not contradict annotations, and the added workflow details enhance transparency 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?

The description is three sentences, around 80 words, front-loaded with purpose followed by prerequisites and action steps. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description provides a clear workflow but lacks documentation for most parameters. It integrates well with sibling tools and explains prerequisites and subsequent steps, but parameter semantics are insufficient for complete context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds meaning for two out of 11 parameters: 'Generate a UUID v4 string for `id`' and implicit mention of caseFileId. Other parameters like name, language, validityFrom, validityTo, modelId, purpose, accessToken, filledFields, and dossierTemplateId are left undocumented. This insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 that the tool creates a dossier to aggregate certified evidence groups into a tamper-evident PDF. This specific verb and resource, along with the purpose, effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like dossier_preview, dossier_update, 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 explicit prerequisites (case_file_create → caseFileId, evidence groups must be in CLOSED status), instructions for generating a UUID for `id`, and subsequent steps (link with dossier_evidence_link, then certify with dossier_certify). This clearly guides when and how to use the tool.

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