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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, open-world write operation. The description adds useful PATCH semantics by saying only passed fields are changed, but it does not disclose permission requirements, side effects, or what makes the operation destructive.

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 two compact sentences with the write intent and partial-update behavior front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 update tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: annotations cover safety hints and the description covers partial-update behavior. It still leaves field-level parameter meaning and update failure behavior unexplained.

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 9%, with essentially just client_id documented, so the description must compensate for ten undocumented fields. 'Only the fields you pass are changed' is a valuable partial-update semantic, but it does not explain the meaning of fields such as mol, bulstat, or is_reg_vat.

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 fields of an existing client', with the endpoint PATCH /clients/{id}. This clearly distinguishes it from creation and retrieval tools such as invbg_create_client and invbg_get_client, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 phrase 'change fields of an existing client' and the parenthetical partial-update note imply when to use this tool rather than creating or fetching a client. However, it gives no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use guidance.

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