update_consulting_clientUpdate mutable fields on an owned consulting client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| client_id | Yes | ||
| contact_name | No | ||
| organization | No | ||
| contact_email | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide basic behavioral hints (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds only 'mutable fields', which is redundant. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or constraints beyond what the name implies.
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 extremely short (4 words of substance), which is concise. However, it lacks necessary detail to be minimally viable for an AI agent, making it under-specified rather than efficiently complete.
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?
With 7 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema description, the tool description is insufficient. The presence of an output schema is noted in context but the description does not hint at return values. The tool is part of a large set of consulting tools, yet no contextual completeness is provided.
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%, and the description fails to explain any parameter meaning or valid values. For example, 'status' has an enum but no clarification that it toggles client state. The description is purely generic.
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 action ('update') and resource ('consulting client'), and includes the qualifier 'owned' which provides some scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling update tools like update_consulting_deliverable or update_deal, which is needed for a top score.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'owned' but does not explain what that implies or when not to use it. Sibling tools like create_consulting_client or other update functions are not contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.