clio_action_plan_create

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions auth scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the operation is a write, its idempotency, required permissions, or 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 short (3 sentences) and front-loads the operation name and routing. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 an output schema and a single parameter, the description lacks essential context about what the tool creates, what data is needed, and how it relates to sibling tools like 'clio_action_plan_submit'.

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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should detail expected keys or structure, but does not.

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 it's a connector operation for 'action_plan_create', but does not explain what an action plan is or what creating one entails. It differentiates from siblings like 'clio_action_plan_submit' only by name, not by description.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides technical routing details without mentioning use cases or exclusions.

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