advbox_update_lawsuit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The text only restates the action from the tool name ('Update an existing lawsuit') and offers no information about side effects, whether it does partial or full updates, required permissions, or the nature of the operation beyond the verb, giving the agent almost no behavioral 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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no superfluous words and is easy to parse, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It doesn't explain what happens after updating, what the return value is, or how the update behaves (e.g., whether unspecified fields are left unchanged). This is a mutation tool with minimal guidance, comparable to the update_drive example that also scored a 2.

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 documents all 7 parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already captures, so it appropriately hits the baseline of 3 for relying on the schema.

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 (update) and the resource (an existing lawsuit in Advbox), which is specific enough to understand the tool's basic function. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like advbox_create_lawsuit or advbox_get_lawsuit beyond the verb, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of whether it's appropriate for partial updates or only full replacements. The description merely states what it does without contextual usage direction.

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