Add evidence to a view to enable deterministic epistemic warrant evaluation without I/O or LLM inference.
Append an EvidenceItem to a stored view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| proposition_id | Yes | ||
| ingest_attestation | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'Append', implying a mutation, but provides no details on side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a write operation.
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 with no fluff, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified—it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it minimally useful. It is better than a pure tautology but nowhere near the informative level needed.
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 the tool has 4 parameters including a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain the purpose of the stored view, the structure of EvidenceItem, or the meaning of ingest_attestation. An agent cannot call this tool correctly based solely on this description.
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 for parameter documentation. It does not mention any parameters (proposition_id, evidence, text, ingest_attestation) or their roles. This adds no value beyond the raw schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('EvidenceItem to a stored view'), which clearly indicates an add operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ewp_evidence_view_put or ewp_check_record, leaving ambiguity about what a 'stored view' is and how this tool differs from similar ones.
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 no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. An agent is left without guidance on selecting this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.