create_evidence_pack

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

Annotations only signal that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive; the description adds the important behavioral facts that the result is immutable and protected by a SHA-256 hash. It does not explain side effects on source entities or output details, but it meaningfully exceeds the annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

One dense, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads what the tool packages, then the key properties (immutable, SHA-256 hashed), then the purpose.

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 seven-parameter tool with nested input and no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level view but does not state what the tool returns or any constraints across parameters (e.g., whether before/after snapshots must be paired). Schema descriptions cover individual fields, but the overall invocation contract is only partially specified.

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?

All seven parameters already have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so a baseline of 3 applies. The description's high-level categories loosely map to entity_ids, observation_ids, and snapshot IDs but add no field-level semantics beyond 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 states a specific action ('Package') applied to a specific resource (cryptographic evidence pack) and enumerates the inputs: entity positions, observation reconciliations, and snapshot states. It also names the intended purpose (compliance and state-memory task verification), which distinguishes it from the sibling data-management tools.

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 intended context is explicit: evidence for compliance and state-memory task verification, implying use after snapshots/observations are collected. It does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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