surfmeter_update_client

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the ownership constraint (shared clients are read-only) and the list of updatable fields, but doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, or response behavior. It adds some context beyond annotations but not rich detail.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the ownership constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and the critical ownership constraint, but lacks details on response format, error handling, parameter semantics, and potential side effects. For a write tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, more context would be beneficial, though the annotations and sibling context partially fill 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 only 20% (only 'id' has a description). The description mentions 'labels, tags, or client-group assignments' but doesn't map these explicitly to the schema's 'tags', 'label', 'extra_label', and 'client_group_ids', nor explain their meaning or format. It provides only a high-level field list, insufficient to compensate for 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 clearly states the tool updates an owned client's labels, tags, or client-group assignments, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling read/search tools by explicitly framing this as an update operation, and the ownership constraint further differentiates it.

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 clear usage condition: only owned clients can be updated, and shared clients are read-only. This implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it beyond the shared-client restriction.

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