Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints (mutable, non-destructive, idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about partial updates ('Only the provided fields will be changed'), which isn't captured in annotations. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid 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 appropriately concise with two sentences (English and Spanish versions). The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context about partial updates. No wasted words, though the bilingual format slightly reduces efficiency.

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 good annotations but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and partial update behavior, but doesn't address error cases, response format, or system constraints. The annotations help, but more context would be beneficial 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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like explaining field constraints or relationships). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing client'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_expense or update_invoice, which follow the same pattern for different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing the client ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from other client operations like create_client or get_client. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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