update-matter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial update behavior and the lack of a direct stage move mechanism, which is useful. However, it omits side effects, return values, permissions, or what happens on error, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a valuable caveat without any fluff or repetition, making every word earn its place.

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?

Given 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks return format, error handling, permission requirements, and detailed field semantics. The pipeline stage note is helpful but leaves the rest of the tool's operation undocumented.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate. It adds meaning to sub_status_id by explaining its role as the closest control for stage moves and clarifies that all parameters are partial updates. However, most parameters (e.g., tags, email, notes) remain unexplained by both schema and description.

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 a matter, using the verb 'Update' and resource 'matter'. It also differentiates from siblings by noting that there is no documented way to move a matter between pipeline stages, and sub_status_id is the closest control, which is unique to this tool.

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?

It provides clear usage context by explaining that only provided fields change (partial update) and warns about the pipeline stage limitation, implicitly telling users to use sub_status_id for stage changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like create-matter or list-matters.

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