update_billing_client

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description merely restates the mutable nature of the operation without adding behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, partial-update behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when confirm is false.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the action and target. The parenthetical 'whmcs/update_client' and trailing 'и т.д.' add slight noise and vagueness, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, minimal schema descriptions, and limited annotations, this description is too thin. It does not mention the confirmation requirement, whether fields are updated partially or entirely, what the response looks like, or how this relates to get_billing_client for verification.

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?

With only 8% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping human-readable categories like ФИО, company, address, email, and phone to the schema's billing_firstname, billing_companyname, billing_address1, billing_email, and billing_phonenumber fields. However, it does not clarify formats, optionality, validation rules, or the required confirm semantic beyond the schema's own one-line description.

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 specific verb ('Изменить') and resource ('данные клиента в биллинге'), then lists representative fields such as ФИО, company, address, email, and phone. It clearly differentiates this write operation from the sibling get_billing_client and other update tools by naming the billing-client scope.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_contact or get_billing_client. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or the role of the required confirm parameter.

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