lpza_update_matter

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the non-obvious read-modify-write behavior (fetch, merge, POST all fields), which is critical for an agent to understand side effects. However, it doesn't mention error handling or what happens if the matter does not exist.

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, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Perfectly sized.

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 tool with 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers behavior but not parameter specifics or expected return value. It also leaves the 'lookup' term unexplained, requiring external knowledge.

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 6% (matter_id). The tool description says it merges changes but provides no explanation of the 18 parameters, leaving the agent without meaning for fields like reservetrust or deadfilenumber.

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 tool updates an existing matter via matter.update, specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling lpza_create_matter by focusing on update, and the phrase 'full record, not a partial patch' further clarifies its specific behavior.

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?

Explicitly describes the internal flow (fetches detail first, merges changes) and provides an important exclusion: this is not a partial patch. This helps the agent decide when to use it rather than a partial-update tool, though no explicit sibling alternatives are named.

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