rm_update_client

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as partial-update semantics, null-field behavior, idempotency, or permission requirements. 'Update' merely restates the mutation intent already visible in the annotations and name.

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 sentence is short and grammatically simple, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It conveys no useful information beyond the tool name and does not use structure to organize any of the material an 8-parameter update tool needs.

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?

Given 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an openWorldHint, the missing guidance is substantial: partial-update semantics, whether null clears a field, whether archived is settable, and whether extra fields are accepted. The output schema covers return values, but the input side is left almost entirely unexplained.

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%, and the description names zero parameters. With 8 parameters, including nullable fields, an archived flag, and a required client_id, the agent gets no explanation of what each parameter means or how null/default values behave. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update a client record.' This distinguishes it from sibling client tools like create/delete/get/list at a basic level. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no detail about scope, fields, or semantics.

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 tool versus rm_create_client or rm_delete_client, no mention that the client must already exist, and no exclusions or alternative references. The only usage signal is the word 'Update,' which is implied by the tool's name.

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