clients_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the partial-update semantics clearly ('only the provided fields will be updated'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the UUID doesn't exist, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context would be expected.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It states the action, the key identifier (UUID), and the critical partial-update semantics. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 resource-update tool with 100% schema coverage and 23 well-documented parameters, the description adequately covers the essential context. The partial-update semantics are the most important missing piece the schema can't convey, and the description delivers it. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation could be useful, but it's not critical for an update operation. The main gap is the absence of failure/edge-case behavior (nonexistent UUID, validation errors), but the schema handles parameter documentation thoroughly.

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 every one of the 23 parameters is documented in the schema with meaningful descriptions. The description adds the key semantic insight that all fields are optional in an update context — a critical detail not derivable from the schema alone (where only uuid is required). The description correctly emphasizes partial-update semantics, which adds real value beyond the structured schema.

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 'Update an existing client by UUID' with a specific verb (update) and resource (client). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the UUID-based update pattern, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from related tools like clients_create or clients_delete. The purpose is clear but the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 states that all fields are optional and only provided fields will be updated, which conveys the partial-update behavior. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., clients_create for new clients, clients_sync_invoices for syncing). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, such as whether the client must exist or permissions required.

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