patch_matter_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only notes the HTTP method and provides a date format for one parameter. It does not explain side effects, permissions, or that only provided fields are updated.

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 very short but front-loaded with the purpose. However, the formatting of 'destruction_date: YYYY-MM-DD.' is somewhat awkward and not integrated into a clear sentence structure.

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 has 3 parameters (matter_id, destruction_date, retention_policy) and no schema descriptions, the description only addresses one parameter's format. It omits details about retention_policy, return values, and behavior when fields are omitted. This is incomplete for an update tool.

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%. The description adds meaning for destruction_date by stating the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), but does not clarify matter_id or retention_policy. This partial addition is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it updates archive metadata fields on a matter using PATCH. It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_matter and get_matter_archive by indicating a partial update operation. However, it only explicitly mentions destruction_date, not retention_policy, slightly reducing clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like archive_matter or patch_matter. It does not mention that it is for updating specific fields only, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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