record_site_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that evidence is recorded locally and that no upload occurs, but it does not mention idempotency, whether records can be overwritten, prerequisites like existing projects, or any local side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important behavioral fact. The second sentence repeats schema enum info but remains brief, so the overall structure is still efficient.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains no semantics for three key parameters and gives no usage context, leaving the agent uncertain about what valid content or source_reference values look like.

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 needed to compensate for the undocumented parameters. Instead, it merely restates the enum values already present in the schema for evidence_type and publication_status, and it provides no explanation of project_id, source_reference, or content.

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 ('Record sourced evidence') and a scoping constraint ('locally; this performs no upload'). This clearly differentiates it from the calculation and drafting siblings, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The only contextual hint is the local/no-upload behavior, which is a behavioral fact rather than a usage rule.

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