update_downloadclient_by_id

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

Annotations already specify idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation semantics. The description adds the HTTP method PUT, which aligns but provides no extra behavioral context such as error handling, response format, or side effects beyond the annotation coverage.

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 concise, starting with the purpose and endpoint, then listing arguments with brief annotations. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it could offer more detail without becoming verbose.

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 mutation tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description is sparse. It directs to GET/schema for body structure, which is helpful, but it omits explanation of force_save and potential invocation nuances. It suffices for straightforward updates but leaves some gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description is the only source. It identifies id as path, body as payload with an instruction to consult GET/schema, and force_save as a query parameter but without explaining its behavior. For a tool with a complex body object, this is minimal and leaves force_save undefined.

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 'Update DownloadClient' with the explicit PUT endpoint and path parameter, making it clear this updates a single download client by ID. It is distinguishable from the bulk update sibling by the {id} path, though it doesn't explicitly say 'single'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_downloadclient (for new resources) or update_downloadclient_bulk (for multiple). The only advisory 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first' pertains to parameter semantics, not usage context.

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