lpza_create_matter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only mentions a fee relationship, not side effects, permissions, uniqueness handling, or error behavior. For a mutating create operation, this is insufficient.

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 only two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and adds relevant context about fees, making it concise and structured effectively.

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?

It is adequate for a simple create tool, but it lacks behavioral depth such as duplicate handling, required auth, or response details. With no output schema, return info is not required, but the description could still provide more context about preconditions.

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 83%, which qualifies as high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema is mostly self-explanatory.

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 'Create a new matter via matter.insert' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lpza_create_client and lpza_update_matter by focusing on matter creation.

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 second sentence, 'Fees can only be posted to a matter,' implies usage context: you need a matter before posting fees. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools.

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