advbox_create_lawsuit

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It only states that it creates a lawsuit and lists required parameters, but does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new lawsuit in Advbox') and immediately follows with essential requirements. No wasted words and appropriate length 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?

Despite having 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention optional parameters (notes, folder, process_number, etc.), return values, or prerequisites beyond required IDs. For a complex create operation, more context is needed for reliable 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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds value by singling out the required parameters (users_id, customers_id, stages_id, type_lawsuits_id) but does not clarify formats, relationships, or optional parameter usage beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Create'), the resource ('a new lawsuit'), and the system ('in Advbox'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like advbox_update_lawsuit. It also lists the required IDs, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Create a new lawsuit' provides clear context that this tool is for creation, not updates (which are handled by advbox_update_lawsuit). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the implied usage is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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