ewp_evidence_view_put

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses rejection behavior and a trust-based parameter requirement. Still, it omits side effects (create vs update), error behavior, and response shape for a mutating 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?

Three short sentences convey the action, an exclusion, and a parameter condition. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential action, a key refusal case, and a parameter requirement. However, the term 'trusted origins' is undefined, and the absence of any output schema or return behavior leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether the call succeeded.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It partially does: 'view' is clarified as an EvidenceView (not WarrantView), and 'ingest_attestation' is tied to trusted origins. But it does not describe the view object structure or the attestation semantics for non-trusted origins.

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 ('Persist') and resource ('EvidenceView'), making the core operation clear. It also explicitly refuses WarrantView bodies, which differentiates it from warrant-related tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from ewp_evidence_view_get.

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 implies usage for persisting EvidenceView objects and provides a when-not condition via 'Refuses WarrantView bodies.' It also gives a conditional requirement for trusted origins. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer a sibling tool like ewp_evidence_view_get.

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