move_update_client

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

The description says 'Replace', which conveys that the existing metadata object is entirely overwritten rather than merged. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, and the annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operative verb, and contains no filler. It earns every word.

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 simple one-parameter update with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could add explicit notes about replacement semantics or field requirements, but 'Replace the metadata object stored on the client (account)' is sufficient for correct 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?

The description identifies the single parameter as the metadata object stored on the client, which gives the bare object schema some meaning. However, schema coverage is 0% and the metadata object allows arbitrary properties, so the description doesn't compensate with key conventions, constraints, or examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace') and names the exact resource ('the metadata object stored on the client (account)'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like move_client_info and other move_update_* tools by target and action.

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 description clearly identifies the client/account as the target and 'replace' as the operation. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the sibling tool names make the alternative read/update paths obvious, and there is no competing client-update tool.

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