update_client

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the tool's name. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether updating client_secret invalidates existing tokens), whether the update is partial or a full replacement, permission requirements, or any consequences for the login page. This is a serious gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, which is appropriately concise. However, it is so minimal that it fails to convey any useful information beyond the tool name, so it does not earn its place as a meaningful description. It lacks the field enumeration seen in the calibration example for update_drive.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential context such as whether the update is partial or full, the effect on existing tokens, authorization requirements, and how the login page is affected. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on the provided description.

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 the schema already documents every parameter's meaning and constraints. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high coverage. It does not introduce any additional context beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Update an existing OAuth client') that distinguishes this from create_client and delete_client by specifying 'existing'. It unambiguously identifies the operation and target, leaving no doubt about what the tool does.

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 such as create_client, delete_client, or get_client. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the client must already exist), nor does it explain scenarios where partial updates are preferred over full replacement. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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