add_evidence

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions adding and linking, but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, concise sentence (15 words) that front-loads the core action. While it could benefit from additional detail, it contains no wasted words and is appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 5 required) and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens after creation, how goals are linked, or what the response entails, leaving significant contextual gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a high-level purpose ('link to appraisal goals') but does not elaborate on parameter meanings or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Add', the resource 'new evidence or achievement', and the context 'link it to the appraisal goals it fulfills'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_evidences (listing) and update_evidence_image (updating images).

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 implies usage for creating new evidence, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., update functions), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is clear but lacks directive guidance.

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