Update 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 does not need to reiterate safety. It adds minimal context by stating the action ('update'), but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or response behavior. This is adequate given the annotations, but no extra value is provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word ('Update', 'an', 'existing', 'client') earns its place, providing clear and direct purpose without redundancy.

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 four parameters with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description should mention the return value (e.g., the updated client object) or behavior on partial updates. Omitting this leaves the agent without information on what to expect after invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond 'update an existing client.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing client' uses a specific verb (update) and resource (client), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_client, delete_client, or list_clients. The word 'existing' further clarifies that it modifies an already created 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_client (for new clients) or update_website (for other resources). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios that are appropriate or inappropriate for invoking this tool.

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