client_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Update a client' only restates the tool name. It does not explain side effects, whether the update is partial or full replacement, permission requirements, or what happens to omitted fields.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though it sacrifices informative detail for brevity.

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?

This is a state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested params object whose allowed fields are completely unspecified. The description does not tell an agent what fields are updatable, how reseller_id is used, or what the response looks like, so it is inadequate for reliable 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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, and the schema's 'Fields to update' for params is vague, but coverage is 100%, so no additional burden falls on the description.

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 names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a client'), which clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from sibling tools like client_add or client_delete. However, it offers no detail on which client attributes can be updated, so it is clear but minimal.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as client_add, client_get, or client_delete. There is no mention of prerequisites, required context, or situations where sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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