Delete matter

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

Discloses soft-delete behavior, which aligns with destructiveHint=true. The idempotentHint is supported by describing that a second delete attempt returns 404. The description adds context about dependency checks (422) beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three succinct sentences: action, prerequisite, return statuses. No unnecessary information, every sentence adds value.

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 the simple parameter set and good annotations, the description covers success, failure, and dependencies. It lacks explanation of what 'soft-delete' implies (e.g., reversibility), but overall it's sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the single integer parameter 'matter_id' is self-explanatory. Description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score is appropriate for a simple parameter.

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?

Description clearly states 'Soft-deletes a matter' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clio_create_matter, clio_update_matter, and clio_get_matter by focusing on deletion.

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?

Description notes that the tool is disabled unless CLIO_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true, providing a clear prerequisite. It also mentions error codes for already deleted (404) and dependencies (422). However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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