ewp_evidence_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a write operation (append and create), states the authorization requirement (ingest role), and names the return value (new view_id). The 'snapshot from the latest one' phrasing implies non-destructive append behavior, though side effects and failure modes are not detailed.

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 one compact sentence plus two short clauses, front-loading the core action and proceeding to role and return value. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description gives the essential behavioral, authorization, and return-value context, which is helpful given no annotations. But the nested evidence object and optional parameters remain under-documented, so an agent cannot confidently construct a complete call without inspecting the schema or external domain knowledge.

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 only 20%, and the description adds little parameter meaning beyond saying polarity is required. It does not explain proposition_id, the evidence object fields (content, observed_at, source), text, ingest_attestation, or the relationship between the optional new_view_id input and the returned new view_id.

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 action ('Append an EvidenceItem') and a concrete outcome ('creates a new snapshot from the latest one' and 'Returns the new view_id'). It is clear but does not contrast itself with siblings such as ewp_evidence_view_put, so it is not fully differentiated.

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 'Append' verb plus 'creates a new snapshot' implies when to use it, and 'Requires the ingest role' gives an access prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives and no mention of ewp_evidence_view_put/get or other sibling tools that might serve related view operations.

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