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

Annotations already declare write and destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass are sent and overwrite the old values'), but does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or validation behavior for a destructive mutation.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the resource, followed by the key partial-update rule. No filler.

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 destructive mutation with 16 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and incomplete schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits required client_id handling, response behavior, and meaning of most fields.

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 only 44% across 16 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains partial-update semantics generally but gives no field-level meaning for undocumented parameters like city, phone, state, country, or the nested other_contact object.

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 (change fields), resource (existing client), and method (PUT /clients/{id}.json). The word 'existing' distinguishes it from bidsketch_create_client, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Implies usage through 'change fields of an existing client,' and the partial-update note helps, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs bidsketch_create_client or guidance on whether to fetch the client first with bidsketch_get_client.

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