add_evidence

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the event is 'immutable' (append-only), which informs the agent that changes cannot be undone. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response structure beyond returning an ID. This is partial transparency.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action ('Append') and key attribute ('immutable'). Every word contributes value; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is an exemplary concise description.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide any context about the purpose of the evidence event, the meaning of parameters, or the relationship to sibling tools. With six parameters and zero parameter documentation, the agent lacks the information needed to construct valid calls. The description is far too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the six parameters (kind, payload, audience, title_id, supersedes, exposure_id). The description mentions none of them, leaving the agent completely dependent on the raw schema, which lacks descriptions. This is a critical gap.

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 clear verb ('Append') and specific resource ('immutable evidence event') and explicitly mentions the return value (event ID). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic tools, though it does not reference sibling tools like record_reaction or record_recommendations, so differentiation is implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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