clio_update_matter

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

The description adds value by clarifying that closing is a status update to 'closed', a nuance not in the schema. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether updates are partial/full, permission requirements, or reversibility of changes, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the operation and then adds a useful clarifying example, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple update tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral detail. It does not mention available fields (schema covers that) or return behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's low complexity, though some contextual info like partial updates is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It gives meaning to the status parameter by linking closing to 'closed' and implicitly identifies that the id selects the matter. However, it does not explain the description parameter or all possible status transitions, so compensation is incomplete.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'matter', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/get/find. The parenthetical adds specificity about status changes, making the purpose 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 implies usage for updating an existing matter but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., create for new matters). No prerequisites or exclusions are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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