update_client

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses partial update behavior and the required permission, but does not mention other behaviors such as idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or what happens when required fields are omitted. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose and partial update rule. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, 1 required, and no enums, the description misses contextual details like return format (though output schema exists), usage scenarios, and parameter interdependencies. Adequate for a simple update but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description should compensate. However, it only states that changes are field-specific and lists no parameter semantics (e.g., default_rate meaning). The schema provides titles but no descriptions, leaving agents to guess parameter meanings.

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 'client details', and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_client. It also specifies the partial update behavior ('Only the fields you pass change'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 says when to use (update client details) and that it requires clients:write permission, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. The context of sibling tools provides implicit differentiation, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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