Change a client timezone

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds that there is no server-side dry run and that omitting confirm returns a preview instead of sending the request. That is meaningful behavior beyond the annotations and consistent with them. It still does not say what the preview or success response contains.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the verb, resource, and endpoint, followed by the safety gate. No redundant restatement of the name or title and nothing that could be cut.

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 single-field mutation with a confirm gate and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what changes, that it is a write, that nothing executes without confirm, and that a preview is returned. It leaves unaddressed what the preview/response looks like and whether the change is reversible, which is a small residual gap.

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% — confirm and idempotencyKey are documented in the schema, while id and body.timezone are bare. The description clarifies the confirm gate (no send without it, preview otherwise) but adds nothing about id, the timezone value format, or idempotency-key semantics, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Change) and resource (a client timezone) plus the underlying endpoint PATCH /v1/clients/{id}, which pins down that this is a narrowly scoped field update rather than a general client edit. It would be a 5 if it explicitly distinguished itself from clients_create or a broader client update, but an agent can already tell what it 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 gives a hard execution prerequisite — nothing is sent unless confirm: true is passed — which is real usage guidance. It offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to siblings and no prerequisites (auth scope, client existence), so usage is only partially covered.

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