evidence_group_create

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

Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) with no destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral details: it requires a UUID to be generated, returns an evidenceGroupId, and notes that one group can hold multiple evidence records. No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences long with no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, prerequisite, ID generation, type enumeration, return value, and capacity note. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 that this is a creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (evidenceGroupId) and the group's capacity for multiple records. It is slightly incomplete regarding optional parameters like `attestation`, but overall provides sufficient context for agent invocation.

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 covers `id` (generate UUID), `evidenceType` (list of enums), and `caseFileId` (from previous step). However, it omits details for `name`, `description`, and `attestation` (a nested object). This partial coverage is adequate but not complete.

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 tool creates an evidence group inside a case file, using a verb ('Creates') and specific resource ('evidence group'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like evidence_create, which creates individual evidence records rather than groups.

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?

It specifies a prerequisite (case_file_create → caseFileId) and provides guidance on generating a UUID for `id` and setting `evidenceType` to one of the enumerated values. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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