update_client

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Change' plus 'or' hints at a partial update of an existing client, but it never says whether omitted fields are left untouched, whether null clears a field, whether the client must pre-exist, or what permissions are needed. That is a major gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is as short as a description can be while still stating verb and resource.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be documented, but the description still leaves a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema parameter documentation almost entirely unexplained. An agent cannot confidently call this without guessing at update and validation semantics.

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 must compensate, and it only partially does. It names the comment and group-ID fields implicitly but says nothing about the required client_id, the array-of-integers format for groups, or the null-clearing behavior defined in the schema's defaults.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a configured client's comment or group IDs'), which is enough to separate it from list_clients, add_client, and remove_client. It is clear what the tool operates on, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_client or remove_client, no prerequisites (e.g., the client must already exist), and no indication of what happens when only one field is supplied. The agent must infer the update semantics entirely.

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