dossier_group_certify

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

Description discloses key behaviors: returns dossierId immediately with 'CERTIFYING status', requires CLOSED seal, and requires prior steps (caseFileId, evidenceGroupId). Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted; the description adds context beyond what annotations provide.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It is concise and includes critical usage notes. However, parameter descriptions could be structured more clearly (e.g., bulleted list) to improve readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers return value ('dossierId immediately with CERTIFYING status') and polling guidance. It explains prerequisites and use case. Missing parameter descriptions and sibling comparisons reduce completeness for a 7-parameter tool, but it covers core behavioral aspects.

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 partially explains 'id' (UUID v4) and mentions caseFileId and evidenceGroupId are from prior steps, but does not describe 'name', 'language', 'modelId', or 'evidenceIds'. This leaves significant gaps for the AI agent.

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 it 'Creates AND certifies a dossier from a single sealed evidence group in one call (express path).' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like dossier_create or dossier_certify, which are separate steps.

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 usage context: 'Use when you have exactly one sealed evidence group and don't need multi-group aggregation.' It lists prerequisites (e.g., evidence_seal CLOSED status) and suggests polling until CERTIFIED. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for multi-group scenarios, but the guidance is clear.

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