append_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses deduplication behavior, consistency maintenance of unsupported_claims, conservative support_status defaults, return behavior, and explicit non-goals. This is exemplary transparency for a mutation tool.

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 but every clause earns its place. It front-loads the core action and use case, then efficiently covers defaults, deduplication, return value, and boundaries without repetition or fluff.

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 6-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains return value, defaults, deduplication, and non-goals. It does not detail the exact shape of the returned pack or error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the richness elsewhere.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: existing claims gain sources instead of duplicating, support_status default logic, and the pack_json/topic relationship. This elevates it above baseline.

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 and resource: 'Append a claim and its sources to an evidence pack and re-validate the result.' It clearly distinguishes this from validation/audit siblings by emphasizing incremental construction and explicitly listing non-goals such as verifying quotes or factual truth.

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 context: 'Use when building an evidence pack incrementally as sources are read, instead of assembling the whole document by hand.' It also provides exclusions ('does not write files, fetch URLs...'), though it does not name alternative sibling tools directly.

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