update_config_downloadclient_by_id

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral guidance to fetch the GET/schema before updating, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations and clarifies that this is a write operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: action, endpoint, then parameters. It avoids fluff and each sentence adds value. The structure is clear and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more formatted with a bullet list, but it remains effective.

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 a complex body, the description provides the essential invocation details and points to the schema for field specifics. It does not explain the return format, but an output schema is present. It also does not discuss error handling or partial vs full updates, but the GET/schema guidance covers the main uncertainty. Overall, it is sufficient for a competent agent to proceed.

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 must compensate. It explains id is a path parameter and body is a request payload, and directs the agent to GET/schema for field details. While it does not enumerate body fields, it provides a clear path to obtain them, which is a reasonable mitigation for an open-ended object.

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 the action clearly: 'Update DownloadClientConfig.' and specifies the exact HTTP method and endpoint. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like update_downloadclient_by_id or update_downloadclient_bulk by targeting the config resource specifically.

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 provides a clear prerequisite—'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first'—which tells the agent how to prepare the body. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Given the many similar update_*_by_id tools, some explicit routing would help, but the name is specific enough.

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