update_downloadclient_by_id

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

Annotations already carry idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The added 'force_save' query parameter and the instruction to inspect GET/schema are useful context, but the description does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or what force_save actually changes.

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?

Five short lines with no filler: the operation, the exact endpoint, and the three arguments are front-loaded. Every element earns its place, and the body discovery instruction replaces what would otherwise require external documentation.

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 endpoint with a free-form body and no schema descriptions, pointing the agent to GET/schema is the key missing piece and is present. The existence of an output schema partially covers return values, and annotations cover safety, though force_save semantics and alternative-tool routing are left out.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the role labels ('Path parameter', 'Request payload', 'Query parameter') add some structure beyond the raw schema. It offers an actionable discovery path for body fields, but it leaves force_save's semantics unexplained and the id/body descriptions are minimal.

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 names the exact operation ('Update DownloadClient') and gives the full PUT endpoint with an {id} path segment, so there is no ambiguity about which resource and which instance is affected. The by_id suffix and URL distinguish it from sibling tools like update_downloadclient_bulk without extra prose.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before supplying a body, which is essential for this open-schema resource. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like update_downloadclient_bulk, so it stops 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.