research_link_evidence

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose side effects and constraints. It only states that evidence is attached, but doesn't say whether the record must already exist, whether attachments are appended or replaced, or what response/errors to expect.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It communicates the core action efficiently.

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 mutation tool with seven parameters and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient. It lacks parameter semantics for kind/actor, usage context, and behavioral details like idempotency or validation, even though an output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain all seven parameters. It adds meaning for uri, content_hash ('optional hash'), and summary ('compact summary'), but leaves required fields kind and actor undefined, and record_id is only implicit.

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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') and names the resource ('external evidence URI...to a record'), which clearly distinguishes it from the read/query/sync siblings. It is unambiguous about the tool's core action.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as research_validate or research_propose. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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