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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it omits the single most important behavior for an 8-parameter update tool: whether omitted fields are preserved (partial patch) or cleared (full replace). It also says nothing about permission requirements, whether updates are reversible, or what happens when the ID is unknown.

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 short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource immediately. It is efficiently written, though the terseness is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue at this tool's complexity.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should say what a successful update returns and how partial payloads are handled. Neither is present, leaving critical invocation semantics undefined.

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 field including the id ("from search_clients") is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing beyond "by ID" — no guidance on which of the seven optional fields matter or on update semantics for omitted ones.

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 and resource ("Update an existing client by ID"), which cleanly separates it from create_client, delete_client, and search_clients in the sibling set. It stops short of naming which client attributes can be modified, but the action and target are unambiguous.

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?

"Existing" weakly implies the client must already exist, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool over create_client, no prerequisite (e.g. obtain the ID via search_clients), and no exclusion criteria. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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