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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that an admin token is required (auth requirement) and that the action updates the billing address (a mutation). However, it does not describe the response format, whether the update is idempotent, or any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing address). This is a moderate gap for a mutation tool, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with zero fluff. The access restriction is front-loaded, followed by the core purpose and identification guidance. Every sentence contributes to the tool's usability, making it highly concise and 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?

The description covers purpose, identification, and auth requirements, but it omits details about the response (e.g., whether it returns the updated client) and potential error conditions. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could provide more behavioral context. For a tool with 8 parameters and 3 required, this is adequate but not complete, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that client_id is the preferred identifier and that client_email/client_name are fallbacks, and it implies the address fields (street_address, city, zip_code) are the ones being updated. This guidance goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions, so the description earns a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Met à jour l'adresse de facturation d'un client Qonto existant' (updates the billing address of an existing Qonto client). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like qonto_create_invoice (create vs update) and other non-Qonto tools. The identification methods (client_id, client_email, client_name) are also specified, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's 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 gives clear usage context: 'RÉSERVÉ AU STUDIO (token d'administration requis)' indicates it is only for the studio and requires an admin token, and it recommends client_id as preferred over client_email/client_name. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternatives (though no direct alternative exists). The prerequisite and identification preference provide solid guidance, so it earns a 4.

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