update_download_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does convey the important replace-style behavior by saying 'send the whole object back', implying this is not a partial update. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether omitted fields are reset, validation behavior, or what the tool returns.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the crucial fetch-first plus whole-object workflow is stated efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential workflow: fetch first, modify, send the complete object. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but for selecting and invoking this update tool correctly, the guidance is largely sufficient.

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%, and the schema already documents 'id' as the download client id and 'config' as the full resource object including id. The description reinforces this by saying 'send the whole object back', but adds little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Update an existing download client', which is a specific verb plus a specific resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_download_client, get_download_client, and delete_download_client by emphasizing 'existing'.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Fetch it with get_download_client first', naming the sibling tool to use beforehand. It then states the exact workflow: change what is needed and send the whole object back. This is clear when-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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