create-matter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that a contact is created by default, that match_contact_by falls back to creating a contact, and that missing tags are auto-created. This is strong behavioral transparency, though it doesn't mention details about permissions or response format.

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 three sentences long and immediately front-loads the primary purpose. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct behavioral or parameter context—no fluff or repetition. It is dense but well-structured.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral nuances (contact handling, company matters, tags). It does not clarify that first_name and last_name are always required even for company matters, nor does it describe return values, but these are minor gaps given the richness of the schema and the focus on creation behavior.

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 79%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies the precedence of contact_id over match_contact_by, explains the fallback matching behavior, indicates that tags are auto-created, and notes company matters via company_id/company_name. These enrich understanding beyond field-level descriptions.

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 opens with 'Create a new matter (lead)' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update-matter or list-matters. It also adds essential context about default contact creation and company matter variations, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 description provides clear context on when to use different parameters (contact_id vs match_contact_by vs company_id), which guides usage without explicit exclusions. However, it doesn't directly contrast with sibling tools like create-contact, so it falls short of an explicit 'when not to use this' statement.

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