Update case file

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait not in the schema: labels are shown by every other tool from then on, across sessions and cases. It omits the destructive side effect of removeLabels, but the cross-tool persistence disclosure is valuable context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. Slightly dense with the parenthetical enumerations, but every clause carries 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?

For a 7-parameter case-authoring tool with no output schema and only 43% schema coverage, the description covers the intuition but leaves removeLabels and the note-address/signature plumbing unexplained. Adequate for the main flow, incomplete around deletion and note metadata.

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 43% (low), so the description must compensate. It names summary, labels (with confidence and evidence signatures), and notes (findings, leads, retractions), which maps to several params, but it says nothing about removeLabels, noteAddresses, or noteSignatures. Partial but not full compensation.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it creates/adds to a case (summary, labels, notes). An agent can tell it is a mutating case-authoring tool rather than a reader. It does not name the sibling case_read/case_export explicitly to sharpen the contrast, so it stops at 4.

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?

Usage is implied by the content (add findings, labels, notes to a case), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to the alternative case_read/case_export tools. It is inferred rather than stated.

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