openpanel_update_client_mode

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the word 'Update'. It does not clarify whether changes take effect immediately, if the operation invalidates existing tokens, what authentication scope is required, or whether the change is reversible.

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 short sentence, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata rather than descriptive content intended for the AI, reducing informational density without adding clarity.

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?

With 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the tool requires substantial descriptive documentation. The current description fails to document parameter purposes, valid input formats, or error conditions, leaving critical gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to fully compensate. While 'mode' is mentioned, its valid values (e.g., possible enum values like 'readonly' vs 'write') are not specified. The description completely omits semantics for 'site' (is it a URL or domain?), 'project_id', 'client_id', and 'cors_domains', leaving five parameters undocumented.

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 'Update API client permissions/mode', identifying the verb (Update) and resource (API client). It loosely distinguishes from siblings like openpanel_create_client or openpanel_update_project by focusing on permissions/mode. However, the '[UNIFIED]' tag is unexplained metadata noise, and the description fails to clarify what specific 'mode' values are accepted or how this differs from a hypothetical general client update operation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites documented. For example, it does not mention that a client must first exist (created via openpanel_create_client) or that one should use openpanel_regenerate_client_secret for credential rotation instead.

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