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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing chain-of-custody writes, legal-hold propagation to added captures, and the one-matter-at-a-time constraint. It still leaves open what happens when a capture already belongs to another matter (fail? move?) — a key question given idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the side effects. Every sentence conveys a distinct behavioral fact with no filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. But for a batch mutation touching legal hold, the description omits partial-success/batch-failure semantics and conflict behavior when a capture is already attached to another matter.

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 description coverage is 0% and neither matter_id nor capture_ids is described in the schema, so the description carries the full burden. It adds nothing about the id format/pattern, the 1-50 capture batch limit, or how invalid or duplicate ids are handled.

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+resource (adds captures to a matter) plus the product scope '(Legal plans)', which clearly separates it from siblings like create_matter, list_captures, or get_capture. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling overlaps this operation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'A capture belongs to one matter at a time' and 'Captures are never removed here' hint that removal lives elsewhere, but it never says when to use this versus reassigning or creating a new matter. No explicit when/when-not guidance or preconditions.

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