Update a client's details by passing only the fields to change; all other existing information remains unchanged.
Change a client's details. Only the fields you pass are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| No | |||
| notes | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| client_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the partial-update contract, but leaves a critical ambiguity for a tool where every field defaults to null: whether passing an explicit null clears a field or is ignored, and what happens if client_id does not exist.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the operation is stated before the caveat. Sizing is aggressive but nothing is wasted; the terseness is penalized under contextual completeness rather than here.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, a seven-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no annotations on error behavior needs more: which fields are editable, null semantics, whether client_id must reference an existing client, and what a partial failure looks like.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it names none of the seven parameters or the six updatable fields (name, email, notes, phone, address, company). The only added meaning is the omit-to-keep behavior, which leaves the null-vs-absent distinction for nullable fields unexplained.
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?
"Change a client's details" gives a clear verb plus resource, and the second sentence narrows the operation to a partial update. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like add_client or update_business_profile, but the resource (client vs. business profile) makes the distinction inferable from the name.
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?
"Only the fields you pass are changed" implies the patch-style usage pattern and signals that this is an edit rather than a read, but no conditions for choosing it over siblings (e.g., get_client first, or find_clients to obtain the client_id) are stated. Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.