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

Annotations already supply destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the useful patch semantic that unspecified fields remain untouched — a real behavioral detail beyond the annotation. It stops short of permission requirements, behavior on invalid or missing clients, and whether changes are reversible or logged.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the patch-behavior constraint is front-loaded and the GraphQL mapping is appended as a compact reference. Every clause 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and field semantics but says nothing about what the call returns or how failures surface, and it omits auth/permission context. It is adequate against a fully documented schema but not complete.

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 every parameter (client_id, dob, email, pronoun, names, external_id, mobile_phone) is already documented with format and examples in the schema. The description restates the field list without adding formats, constraints, or required-vs-optional context beyond what the schema provides.

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') plus the resource (a client) and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent immediately knows what this does. It implicitly differentiates from boulevard_create_client and boulevard_get_client via the enumeration and patch semantics, but never names a sibling 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?

'Only the fields you pass change' gives partial-update guidance and implies this is the tool to use for modifying an existing client rather than creating one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid client_id or read-back alternatives.

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