Mark comment as evidence

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains who is allowed to mark, prohibits marking your own comment, and reveals a tricky 403 error interpretation ('evidence_frozen' = record closed, not permission denied). This prevents costly retries and clarifies a non-obvious API behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences carry all essential information: main purpose, role constraint, self-marking prohibition, and a critical error-handling nuance. No fluff, and the most important behavior is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly: what to mark, who may mark, what cannot be marked, and what a specific error means. No critical context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic detail by clarifying the id must reference another user's comment, and that kind 'file' refers to a case file. This complements, rather than restates, 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?

States the exact action ('mark as evidence'), the specific targets ('another user's comment or a case file'), and the actor/role restriction. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like unmark_evidence and list_evidence.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context through role restrictions ('case owner or jury members only') and a clear when-not-to-use signal: if the case has left open, do not retry because the 403 evidence_frozen means the record is closed. This is actionable guidance beyond the schema.

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