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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious constraint: pipeline_stage cannot be set to ACTIVE via this tool. That is genuinely useful and not derivable from the schema. But it omits the biggest behavioral question for a seven-optional-field update — whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared — as well as permission requirements and error behavior.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the routing constraint follows immediately. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly flags the pipeline_stage trap. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the definition is still thin — partial-update semantics, required permissions, and handling of unknown client_id are all absent.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only adds meaning for one field (pipeline_stage's ACTIVE restriction). The other six fields (email, notes, phone, firm_id, display_name, client_id) get no semantics, format hints, or mutability notes from either source.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an EAM client record"), which clearly distinguishes it from read-side siblings like get_eam_clients and from create_eam_client. It also names convert_prospect as the tool for a specific transition, so an agent can partly route between them, though it never contrasts itself with create_eam_client or update_client_goal.

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?

Gives one explicit when-not plus the alternative: pipeline_stage cannot be set to ACTIVE here, use convert_prospect. That is concrete routing guidance. However, it offers no general context for when to update an existing client versus creating one, and no prerequisites (e.g. required permissions or valid client_id sourcing).

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