Mark evidence

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses idempotency ('already-marked is a no-op'), the frozen-evidence behavior with a specific error code and retry guidance, and the permission restriction (never your own comment). These are behavioral details not present in the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false). No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense yet front-loaded. It leads with the action and constraints, then addresses error behavior, id source, related tools, and return format in a logical order. Every sentence contributes new information; there is no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 permission and state constraints, the description covers the authorization rule, idempotency, the frozen-error case, the source of ids, and the exact return format for both comment and file. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 both parameters are already described. The description adds value by clarifying that 'id is the comment or file uuid' (redundant but reinforces), by pointing to tribeunal_list_evidence as the source of valid ids, and by adding the constraint that you must never mark your own comment. This goes beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, earning a slight boost over the baseline 3.

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 verb (mark) and resource (another user's comment or case file), plus the condition 'as evidence'. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by naming tribeunal_list_evidence and tribeunal_unmark_evidence, so an agent can immediately tell this is the marking action, not listing or unmarking.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives: 'Listed via tribeunal_list_evidence; reversed by tribeunal_unmark_evidence' tells the agent where ids come from and how to undo. It also states authorization (case owner or jury only, never your own comment) and provides a clear error-handling directive for the frozen state: '403 evidence_frozen then, not a permissions problem — don't retry.' No ambiguity.

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