delete_matter

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete' but omits details such as whether the deletion is permanent or soft, side effects on related data, error handling, or required authentication scope. The description fails to provide sufficient transparency for a mutation operation.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, seven words) and front-loaded with the key action and target. However, it sacrifices important behavioral and contextual details, making it slightly too brief for comprehensive understanding.

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's simplicity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description might be minimally adequate for a basic CRUD delete. However, it lacks essential context about typical usage flows, error cases, and the nature of the deletion. More detail would improve completeness.

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 adds that matter_id is a 'GUID', which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's plain string type. However, it does not explain how to obtain the GUID, acceptable value ranges, or uniqueness constraints. The addition is helpful but minimal.

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 (delete) and the target resource (matter) with the required identifier (ID, GUID). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like create_matter, update_matter, get_matter, and list_matters by specifying the delete operation.

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 alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., existence of matter, permissions), or when deletion is inappropriate (e.g., if the matter has associated records). This leaves the agent without context for correct tool selection.

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