legal_litigation_hold_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what the action does to the system. Essential traits remain hidden.

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 but includes implementation detail ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher') that is not useful for an agent. The first sentence is repetitive. Parameter descriptions are minimal.

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 is part of a litigation hold family with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description fails to explain what 'issue' means, what triggers it, or what happens after invocation. It is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It describes message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string', but provides no format, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema field names.

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 'Run the legal domain agent action litigation_hold_issue' but does not clarify what issuing a litigation hold entails. It is a vague, tautological description that restates the tool name without specifying the outcome or resource affected.

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 siblings like legal_litigation_hold_loop, legal_litigation_hold_refresh, or legal_litigation_hold_release. The description lacks context for selection.

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