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 disclosure burden and does meaningful work: it states an auth requirement, a body-type restriction, and a conditional attestation flag. It does not disclose persistence semantics such as overwrite-versus-create behavior or failure modes, but the core behavioral constraints are present.

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 front-load the action and follow with the two most important constraints. There is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers auth and the key conditional, but it omits what a trusted origin is, what happens on refusal, and any success/error behavior. An agent can invoke it correctly only if it already understands EvidenceView and trusted-origin context.

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. It adds meaning to the 'view' parameter (must be an EvidenceView, not WarrantView) and clarifies that 'ingest_attestation' should be true for trusted origins, but it leaves the nested structure of the view object undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Persist an EvidenceView'), making the core action unmistakable. It also distinguishes from warrant-related siblings by explicitly refusing WarrantView bodies, so an agent can tell this is for evidence views, not warrant operations.

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?

It provides clear invocation conditions: the caller must have the ingest role, WarrantView bodies must not be sent, and trusted origins must set ingest_attestation=true. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer a different tool, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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