updateClient

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

The destructiveHint annotation signals mutation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Update'. It does not mention potential side effects such as connectivity disruption after changing a static IP, whether changes are immediately applied, or whether unspecified settings are preserved.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides useful examples.

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 destructive update tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not identify which parameter selects the target client, what happens on success/failure, or how partial updates behave. It relies heavily on the schema and annotations to fill major gaps.

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 71%, so most parameters are already documented. The description's examples (display name, static IP, rate limits) map cleanly to the schema but add little meaning beyond what the schema already states. It does clarify that these fields are 'settings', which is marginal value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('client settings') and gives concrete examples (display name, static IP, rate limits). It is distinguishable from read-only siblings like getClient or listClients, though it doesn't explicitly state what it is not.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blockClient, unblockClient, reconnectClient, or getClient. The intended decision boundary between updating settings and other client actions is left entirely to inference.

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