update-client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It indicates a mutation ('Update') but does not specify whether it performs partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects/permissions. The mention of 'protocol mappers' is ambiguous since no such parameter exists in the schema.

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 a single sentence, clearly front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise but omits critical context, so it earns high marks for structure but not for completeness.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details about the update semantics, whether fields are optional or partial, potential effects, and required permissions. The ambiguity around 'protocol mappers' further undermines completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents them adequately. The description adds the notion of 'protocol mappers' but no corresponding parameter exists, which may confuse. It does not add meaningful semantics beyond the 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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'client settings' and provides concrete examples ('redirect URIs, protocol mappers'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like update-protocol-mapper, but the client-scope is evident.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-protocol-mapper or update-realm. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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