Update a client

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, which already covers basic mutation traits. The description adds that it can rename or archive, which is useful context, but it does not disclose side effects of archiving or mention any permissions or reversibility. Given the annotations, the description provides moderate additional transparency.

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 very concise, one sentence with six words, and is front-loaded with the key actions. However, it is under-specified given the number of parameters and the fact that it omits primary update fields (note, address), so the brevity sacrifices necessary information. It is not overly verbose, but it is not appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also fails to mention that note and address can be updated, and does not describe behavior like whether archiving is reversible or if the operation affects existing data. The description is incomplete for a tool with six parameters and moderate complexity.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains 'name' and 'archived' via 'renames or archives', but completely omits 'note' and 'address', leaving those parameters semantically unclear. The description does not add enough value to offset the low schema coverage.

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 'Renames or archives a client' specifies the action and resource, but it is overly narrow and implies the tool can only rename or archive, while the schema also allows updating note and address. This creates ambiguity about the tool's full scope and does not clearly distinguish it from the broader update capabilities.

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 title and description imply the tool is for modifying clients, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like create_client or delete_client. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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