konsulto_add_evidence_to_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the 'auto' section walking order but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the section doesn't exist, or potential side effects. It adds some context but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value without fluff. It is efficiently structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and key behaviors (auto section walking, usage scenario). It could mention the return value or error cases, but it is fairly complete for a grafting operation.

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 50%. The description adds context about grafting evidence but does not elaborate on findingId or caption beyond what the schema provides. The section parameter's alias system is already well-documented in the 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 clearly states the tool grafts an already-uploaded attachment into an existing finding's body at a named section, using a specific verb ('graft') and resource ('finding'). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing konsulto_attach_evidence and focusing on post-creation evidence addition.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when adding evidence after the finding was created' and gives examples, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like konsulto_append_to_section.

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