Save Client Profile

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, which the description aligns with by stating 'upsert'. However, the description adds negligible behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as whether existing data is overwritten or if the operation is reversible. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 single-sentence description is highly concise (20 words), front-loads the action and key verb, and omits unnecessary words. Every phrase serves a purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (nested object, 2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential operation and return value. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., find_client_profile) but could mention implications of destructiveHint or edge cases like duplicate client_id. Still, it is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 50% (parameters have inline descriptions), and the description adds the key detail that upsert uses 'client_id' (though client_id is already in the schema as a required property). The description mentions 'optionally with birth details' but does not explain other parameters. It provides minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool's action as 'create or update (upsert by client_id) a client profile', specifies the resource ('SQLite store'), and mentions optional birth details. It effectively distinguishes this write operation from sibling tools like find_client_profile (read) and parse_birth_details.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. Users must infer usage from the operation alone.

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