legal_litigation_hold_refresh

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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is destructive and non-idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description adds that it routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is useful context, but it gives no detail on side effects, what gets modified, or why the action is destructive. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action name, followed by a brief routing note and an Args list. It avoids filler and is easy to scan, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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, the description is missing critical context: what a litigation-hold refresh does, when it should be used, and what inputs are expected. The generic dispatcher-style wording leaves an agent under-equipped to invoke this tool correctly, especially among many legal_litigation_hold_* siblings.

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's Args section is the only parameter documentation. It clarifies that message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string, but it does not explain what structured inputs are valid, what keys are expected, or how to craft an appropriate message for this specific domain action.

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 a specific action name (`litigation_hold_refresh`) and says it runs that legal domain agent action, but it never explains what refreshing a litigation hold actually does. It relies on the tool name for semantic meaning, leaving it vague for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like legal_litigation_hold_issue, legal_litigation_hold_release, or legal_litigation_hold_loop. Only routing and scope details are given; there are no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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