workflowmoves_audit_epk_evidence

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

Adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: it returns a retained background job, requires polling danceflow_job_status, has no base effect flags, and may involve conditional inference/download effects via danceflow_component. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false because creating a retained job is not read-only, and it does not contradict destructiveHint=false.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and gives operational follow-up in a logical order. Some phrasing such as 'Base effect flags: none' is terse, but overall it is efficient and not padded.

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 background-job audit tool with nested permissions and an output schema, it covers job polling and effect caveats adequately. It still leaves the required records input format and full permission semantics unexplained, so it is only partially complete.

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 50% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining base effect flags and conditional inference/download effects. However, it does not explain the required records string format or the remaining permission flags such as write, network, training, and publication.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: audit recorded EPK evidence, with scope limits around browser, sensor, and rights verification. It implicitly distinguishes this from sibling EPK audits such as layout, timing, and campaign media by focusing on evidence, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling audit tools. It only gives post-invocation guidance to poll danceflow_job_status, leaving selection among workflowmoves_audit_epk_* siblings to inference.

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