update_config_downloadclient_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the operation is a PUT (consistent with idempotency) and instructs to fetch the schema first, implying the body is complex and requires prior knowledge. This adds context beyond annotations but does not reveal any unexpected behavior or side effects.

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 brief and efficiently structured. The primary purpose is stated in the first line, followed by the HTTP method and path, then a minimal parameter list with the essential guidance. There is no redundant content or filler.

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 an update tool with only two parameters and a body that is an open object, the description covers the necessary steps: it identifies the operation, the resource, and tells the agent exactly how to learn the body fields. The output schema exists, so return values are already specified. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'id' is a path parameter (not obvious from the schema) and for 'body' it directs the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover the expected fields. This is a helpful pointer, though it does not enumerate specific fields itself. Given the open schema (additionalProperties: true), this guidance is essential and adds significant semantic value.

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 'Update DownloadClientConfig' – a specific verb and resource. It also provides the HTTP method and path, making the operation unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling update_downloadclient_by_id, which could cause confusion about scope (config vs. entity).

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 includes a clear prerequisite: 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.' This is useful context for correct invocation. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like update_downloadclient_by_id, nor any exclusions. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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