update_clientChange a client card's name, phone, email, birthday or private note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Full name; the last word is the last name. | |
| note | No | Private note, replaces the old one; add_client_note appends. | |
| No | Email address; empty string removes it. | ||
| phone | No | Mobile phone; empty string removes it. | |
| birthday | No | YYYY-MM-DD. | |
| client_id | Yes | From list_clients or find_client. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the field list but does not clarify partial-update semantics or that note replaces the old note; those details live only in the schema. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence lists the mutable fields with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 rich annotations and full schema descriptions, the description establishes purpose adequately for an agent to call the tool. However, it lacks usage routing and does not state that only provided fields are changed, leaving some behavioral context to inference.
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%, and the schema itself explains important semantics such as empty string removal for email/phone and note replacement versus add_client_note appending. The description merely names the fields, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Change a client card') and enumerates the updatable fields, so the agent knows this mutates an existing client. It does not explicitly contrast with add_client or delete_client, but the operation is clear enough without opening the schema.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_client, add_client_note, or delete_client. It also omits prerequisites like obtaining client_id first, which the schema mentions but the description does not reinforce.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.