add_layout_to_matter

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

No annotations provided; the description is minimal and does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a creation tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

One sentence of 11 words, front-loading the verb and resource with no extraneous information.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter operation, but it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., existence of matter/layout design) and does not leverage the output schema to explain return values.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description's wording ('Add a layout design instance to a matter') implies the purpose of 'matter_id' and 'layout_design_id'. However, no additional details on constraints or format are given.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('layout design instance') and target ('matter'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_contact_to_layout' or 'remove_layout_from_matter'.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the name and description imply adding a layout for document generation, which is distinct from other layout-related tools. Clear context without exclusions.

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