clients_update

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation via '[WRITE]' and the confirm flag for safety, but it does not discuss error behavior, side effects, rate limits, or the purpose of the fingerprint parameter (optimistic locking). The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence explicitly stating the purpose and two critical prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the action marker '[WRITE]' and contains no unnecessary words or 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?

The description explains the write enable requirement and confirmation, and tells to pass the full resource. However, it omits important context: the fingerprint parameter for optimistic locking is not mentioned, and there is no indication of the return value or success/failure behavior. Given the tool's complexity (7 params, write operation, no output schema), the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 100%, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying that bodyJson should be a 'full resource as a JSON string,' which goes beyond the schema's 'Full clients resource as a JSON string.' This practical guidance improves usability.

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 starts with '[WRITE] Update an existing GTM client,' clearly stating the verb ('Update'), resource ('GTM client'), and action type. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like clients_create, clients_delete, clients_get, clients_list, and clients_revert.

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 mentions prerequisites: 'Requires GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true.' This gives clear context for safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., clients_create vs update) or when not to use it.

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