Update Client

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying PATCH semantics and confirming that only provided fields are changed. The annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, which the description reinforces. No contradictions are present.

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 two sentences plus an example, but includes bilingual repetition (English/Spanish). While clear and front-loaded, the translation adds unnecessary length. Still efficient overall.

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 complexity of 6 parameters including a nested address object and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: PATCH semantics, partial updates, and an example. It could mention validation or error handling, but it is largely complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description enhances understanding with a concrete example using id, email, and phone, demonstrating how parameters are used together. This adds practical context beyond the schema.

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', the resource 'client', and the method 'PATCH semantics'. It distinguishes from create_client and delete_client by specifying it is for existing clients. This is specific and 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_client or delete_client. It mentions PATCH semantics and provides an example, but lacks explicit guidance on context or when not to use it.

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