update_client

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Update'), but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently adds a key constraint, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and a constraint, but lacks details on permissions, field specifics, or error cases that would be helpful for safe invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'writable client fields' for the 'updates' parameter, adding some meaning beyond the schema's generic object type, but doesn't clarify what fields are writable or provide examples. The 'client_id' parameter is not explained at all, leaving gaps.

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 the action ('Update a client') and resource ('client'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what constitutes 'writable client fields' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_invoice' or 'get_client' beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing client ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_client' or 'list_clients', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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