kiota_client_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool modifies configuration without regenerating code, which is useful context. Yet it does not elaborate on side effects, validation, or whether changes are persisted immediately, leaving some ambiguity about the update process.

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, consisting of two sentences that immediately identify the tool's purpose and key behavior. It avoids redundant information and front-loads the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 configuration-editing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and the notable non-behavior of not regenerating code. It could be more complete by explicitly noting that changes only affect configuration and that code generation is a separate step, but it is sufficient for basic selection and 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the description adds little beyond that. Mentioning 'language, output path, or other settings' maps to the schema but does not introduce new semantic details or clarify usage beyond what the schema already states.

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 the tool updates an existing API client configuration in the Kiota workspace, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting 'without regenerating code', which sets it apart from kiota_client_generate and implies a focus on configuration changes.

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 phrase 'existing API client' indicates it is for modifying an already-created client, contrasting with kiota_client_add for new clients. 'Without regenerating code' suggests it is appropriate when only settings need changing, not for code generation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicitness.

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