Update client

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by clarifying the partial-update behavior (only passed fields change, others preserved). This is important for agents to understand they don't need to pass all fields and that calling it multiple times with the same params is safe. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—with the main action front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the partial-update behavior that is critical for correct usage. No unnecessary words or repetitions. It earns a 5 for efficiency and clarity.

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 has 7 parameters, some of which are alternatives (expiryDays vs expiryTime), and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the general scope of updates and the preservation of unspecified fields. The schema's parameter descriptions cover the specifics. The description doesn't mention edge cases like conflicting fields, but it's not essential because the schema documents them. Overall it's complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific insight beyond grouping them into high-level categories (traffic limit, expiry, enabled state). It does clarify that only passed fields change, which is a general property rather than parameter-specific detail. Thus it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('existing client'), and specifies the updateable aspects: traffic limit, expiry, and enabled state. It distinguishes itself from create/delete/get tools by explicitly stating 'existing client' and 'preserved', which prevents confusion with sibling tools like create_client or delete_client.

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 implies this tool is for modifying an existing client, as opposed to creating or deleting. It states that only passed fields change and everything else is preserved, which gives a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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