attach_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the attachment is immutable and that verification/authorization are not performed, which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects, error behavior, or the role of caller_token, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and adds key limitations, with no wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks details about prerequisites, error handling, or workflow integration. The four required parameters are only partially explained, and with no annotations, the tool is not fully understandable for an agent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides some meaning (evidence profile reference implies profile_path) but leaves request_id and caller_token entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('immutable in-scope evidence profile reference'), clearly stating the action. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting that it does not verify or authorize, contrasting with verify_evidence and evaluate_action_gate.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to attach a reference without verification/authorization) and implicitly indicates when not to use it (if verification or authorization is needed). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like verify_evidence, so it falls short of a 5.

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