submit_evidence

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state any side effects (e.g., whether evidence is immutable, requires special permissions, or affects downstream processes). For a tool that 'attaches' evidence, this lack of behavioral detail is a notable gap, especially without annotation support.

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 sentence with no unnecessary fluff. It is concise and front-loads the main action (attach) and the targets. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the targets or adding a brief clause on usage, but as a one-liner it is acceptable.

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 (7 parameters, 3 required) and the lack of schema descriptions and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'durable evidence' means, how the various targets relate (e.g., 'subject_id' vs. 'artifact_id'), or what the output schema contains. An agent would have to guess at parameter semantics and side effects, making this insufficient for reliable invocation.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for any of the 7 parameters. The tool description spaces 'subject_id', 'evidence_type', 'source', and 'payload' but provides no meaning beyond their names. For example, it does not explain what format 'evidence_type' should take or how 'source' should be specified, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 ('attach') and a resource ('evidence'), and lists four possible targets (family, contract, slice, artifact). This distinguishes it from some siblings like 'attach_artifact' and 'link_entities', but it is vague about what 'durable evidence' means and does not specify the exact scope of what this tool handles compared to others that might also attach or link things.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention when NOT to use it, nor does it reference any sibling tools (e.g., 'attach_artifact' or 'link_entities') that might be more appropriate in certain contexts. This is a significant gap for differentiation among many similar tools in the sibling list.

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