clients_write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds that IDs/owner/timestamps are server-set and that create requires name+email, but it never explains what a delete removes (login only? conversations, leads?) — the main behavioral question for a destructive tool.

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 dense sentences: the first states the scope and the action set, the second maps the field groups and closes with the read-tool pointer. No filler and the routing information is placed last where it is easy to find.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers actions, required fields, field inventory, and the read alternative. The remaining gap is delete semantics and partial-update behavior details, which keep it short of 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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents most fields; the description adds value by grouping clientData into recognizable clusters (login, widgetIDs, canAccess, channels/integrations, org membership, permissions, notifications). It does not clarify the clientId requirement nuances or the deprecated fields, but it is useful orientation above the 3 baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb set (create/update/delete) and a specific resource (whitelabel client accounts / portal logins), and explicitly distinguishes itself from clients_read. An agent can tell this is the write counterpart of the read tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes reads to clients_read and enumerates the three supported actions, plus states create needs at least name and email and update sends only changed fields. It does not spell out when a delete is appropriate versus deactivating via status, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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