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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds 'by id' and the list_accounts reference, but does not disclose potential side effects of setting fields like 'deleted' or 'hidden' which affect visibility. The description could mention soft-delete behavior but is not contradictory.

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 and front-loaded: it states the action and resource in the first sentence and provides a practical pointer for ids in the second. No redundant information or filler.

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 operation, the description is complete: it names the resource, the identifier, and the common updatable aspects (name, description, group, settings). No output schema exists, so no return spec is needed. The id lookup hint covers the only prerequisite.

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 descriptions for all 15 parameters, covering 100% of them. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (update), the resource (chart-of-accounts ledger account), and the key identifier (by id). It also differentiates from list_accounts by pointing to it for ids, which helps an agent know this is for modifying existing accounts.

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 provides a useful hint on obtaining ids via list_accounts, but does not explicitly contrast with create_account or delete_account for when to use update vs. alternatives. The description could be more explicit about partial updates (all fields optional) but the schema implies this.

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