Update matter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that this is a write operation and that a preview/confirm flow guards it, which is valuable. However, it says nothing about permission requirements, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or partial-update semantics for an 11-parameter mutation.

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 compact sentences with the operation and its safety workflow front-loaded; little waste. The 'etc.' ending is slightly loose but does not bloat the text.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 11 parameters at 9% coverage, the description covers the core workflow but leaves most field semantics and update behavior unstated. It is adequate as a minimum viable definition but leaves real gaps for an agent to guess at.

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 9%, so the description must compensate, and it only names about half the parameters (description, status, attorney, practice area, custom fields, close date). Fields like billable, location, client_reference, and matter_id get no explanation, and the 'token from the preview' wording conflicts with the schema's confirm boolean/string definition, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 and resource ('Updates a matter') and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like clio_matter_create or clio_matter_get, but the purpose itself is 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?

'Write operation – preview first, then confirm' gives an explicit two-step workflow that tells the agent when to preview versus when to commit. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use this one, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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