Update Client

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'PATCH semantics' adds minor context. No additional behavioral details (e.g., authorization, side effects) are provided beyond 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 description is two sentences (plus translation) that efficiently convey key information: action, semantics, and an example. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a simple update tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers core behavior (PATCH, field selection). It could mention error handling or prerequisites but remains sufficiently complete given the output schema and annotations.

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 100% with bilingual descriptions for each parameter. The description adds an example but does not enhance semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as per guidelines.

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 existing client using PATCH semantics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_client and delete_client by specifying 'existing client' and 'PATCH', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains that only provided fields are changed (PATCH semantics) and gives an example, guiding proper usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though this is implied by the context.

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