Rate evidence

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 're-rating replaces your prior rating,' adding behavioral context. It goes further with authorization ('any case viewer may rate'), four precise error conditions (400 invalid_rating, 404 evidence_not_found, 400 side_trial_mismatch, 404 side_not_found), and the return shape semantics (evidenceScore is the net up-minus-down score). No contradiction with annotations; the description adds substantial value beyond them.

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 (~120 words) but every sentence carries load: purpose, param provenance, precondition, authorization, idempotency, error codes, and return format. Purpose and rating scale are front-loaded. Slightly on the long side, but no filler or redundancy warrants a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so precisely ({evidenceUuid, rating, evidenceScore} with evidenceScore defined as net up-minus-down). It also covers preconditions, authorization, idempotency, and all error branches. For a 3-param mutation tool with annotations present, 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 the schema fully documents rating, sideId, and evidenceId with patterns and descriptions. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: evidenceId must be a file uuid (kind: file) rather than a comment id, and it clarifies the side_trial_mismatch error tied to sideId cross-case usage. At baseline 3 with full schema coverage, the added constraint and error semantics justify a 4.

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 a specific verb (rate) + resource (evidence-marked case file) and the exact rating scale (1 up, 0 irrelevant, -1 down). It further distinguishes itself by explicitly noting comments are not ratable, separating it from tribeunal_post_comment and tribeunal_list_comments. The agent immediately knows what this tool does and what it does not do.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: files must be marked via tribeunal_mark_evidence before they are ratable, and any case viewer may rate. It excludes comments as a target and specifies the evidenceId source (tribeunal_list_evidence, kind: file). It doesn't name an explicit alternative tool, but the file-vs-comment exclusion and prerequisite guidance are sufficient routing context.

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