Update matter

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds that it uses PATCH semantics, which conveys idempotency implications. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as return values, side effects, or rate limits, leaving a gap 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?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the action 'PATCH a matter', making it efficient. However, it could be more structured by including key parameter guidance without becoming verbose. It is appropriately sized but misses some useful information.

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 9 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the update behavior, return type, error handling, or any constraints. The context signals indicate high complexity, yet the description adds minimal completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter information. The description only advises to pass changed fields but does not explain any parameter meanings, formats, or constraints (e.g., status enum values, date format for open_date). This fails to add significant value over the raw schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb (PATCH) and resource (matter). Distinguishes from sibling tools like clio_create_matter (create) and clio_get_matter (read) by specifying it is an update operation. The phrase 'Pass only the fields you want to change' indicates a partial update pattern.

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 implies usage for updating existing matters and specifies that only changed fields need to be passed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_open_new_matter or clio_delete_matter, nor does it mention prerequisites or permissions.

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