Update client

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds the confirm/dryRun behavior which is critical. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like atomicity, side effects, or error states, leaving gaps in understanding the full behavior.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides critical execution instructions. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's complexity (26 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core behavior and the confirm/dryRun mechanism but omits details like prerequisites, return values, error conditions, and handling of partial updates. It is sufficient for basic use but incomplete for complex scenarios.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'confirm' and 'dryRun' parameters, ignoring 24 others. While many parameter names are self-explanatory (e.g., firstName), others like 'includeAssociatedData' or 'clearEmail' lack explanation, forcing the agent to rely on names alone.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'editable LIMU client profile fields in the Clients table,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client or get_clients. The specific reference to the table and profile fields makes 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 provides clear execution guidance on using 'confirm=true' for real writes and 'dryRun=true' for previews. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to update vs. use other tools for related operations. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative strategies.

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