Rate evidence

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive action, so the description does not need to re-establish the mutation profile. It adds a useful input-scope constraint (evidence IDs only), but does not disclose whether a rating overwrites a previous rating, whether repeated ratings are allowed, or any other side effects.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and rating values are front-loaded, and the important constraint about comments is stated directly afterward.

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 simple rating action, the description covers the essential purpose, accepted values, and a key input restriction. The schema covers required parameters, and no output schema is expected. Minor gaps include re-rating behavior and the purpose of sideId, but these are not critical for basic 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?

The input schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, including the rating enum. The description adds a helpful restriction on evidenceId ('file-evidence ids only') and comments-not-ratable guidance, but otherwise relies on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('Rate'), the resource ('case-file evidence'), and the exact rating scale (1/0/-1). It also distinguishes what is not ratable ('comments are not ratable'), though it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools such as mark_evidence or cast_vote.

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 gives useful context: only file-evidence IDs are accepted and comments are excluded. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like mark_evidence, unmark_evidence, or cast_vote, so the usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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