Create matter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is a write operation, that a preview/confirm cycle exists, and that responsible_attorney_id defaults to the signed-in user. However, it says nothing about required permissions, side effects, or failure modes for a mutation tool, and its confirm mechanism description contradicts the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and affected fields. Every clause carries information, though the trailing confirm instruction is both terse and inconsistent with the schema.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main fields and the safety flow but leaves several parameters undocumented and never addresses return values or permissions. The conflicting confirm guidance further undercuts completeness.

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 only 8%, so the description must compensate; it names roughly half the fields (client_id, description, status, billing_method, responsible attorney, practice area, custom fields) and notes one default. It omits billable, location, open_date, client_reference, and originating_attorney_id, and adds no format or enum detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Creates a new matter') and enumerates the fields being set, so an agent can distinguish it from clio_matter_update/get/search. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 only usage guidance is 'preview first, then confirm with the token from the preview', which actually conflicts with the schema's confirm parameter ('confirm=true performs the write. Use it directly when the user's request contains everything needed'). This points the agent toward the opposite workflow the schema recommends, making the guidance misleading rather than merely thin.

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