create_matter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as creating, implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or success/failure behavior. The description focuses only on input fields, leaving the agent uninformed about the operation's impact or return value.

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 two sentences and directly states the action and field requirements. It is concise and front-loaded, though a more structured format (e.g., listing fields separately) could improve readability. No unnecessary text.

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 single parameter with no schema descriptions, the description provides the most critical information: required and optional fields. It does not mention output format (though an output schema exists) or error handling. Considering the complexity and sibling consistency, it is largely complete, but missing guidance on JSON structure or validation.

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 schema has only one parameter 'fields_json' with 0% description coverage. The description adds significant meaning by explaining it is a JSON object and listing the required ('clientId') and optional fields. This compensates entirely for the schema's lack of descriptions and provides essential context for constructing the parameter.

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 'Create a matter,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_matter' and 'delete_matter,' and from other create tools such as 'create_client' or 'create_invoice.' The purpose is 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 description lists the required field 'clientId' and several optional fields, providing practical guidance on what to include. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_matter') or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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