add_file_to_matter

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool only registers (not uploads) files and that upload is handled separately. However, it fails to disclose other critical behavioral traits: idempotency, error conditions (e.g., duplicate file names), required permissions, or side effects. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the parenthetical adds essential context efficiently. Every part earns its place.

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 role in a multi-step process (file upload then registration), the description is too sparse. It omits workflow ordering, potential prerequisites, behavior on duplicate files, permission requirements, and the meaning of the output schema. The description does not sufficiently equip an agent to use the tool correctly in complex scenarios.

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 is the only source for parameter meaning. However, the description does not explain any parameter: 'name', 'folder_id', or 'matter_id'. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema property names, which provide no context. For a tool with three parameters, this is a critical gap.

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 tool registers a new file on a matter, with the specific verb 'register' and resource 'file'. The parenthetical '(get upload URL separately)' clarifies its role in a multi-step process, distinguishing it from file upload tools like get_file_upload_url and from other file operations like get_file or delete_file.

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 hints at the prerequisite of getting an upload URL separately, implying a two-step process. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_files_to_matter_batch, nor does it specify conditions or exclude cases. More direct guidance on the workflow would improve clarity.

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