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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing null-clears-field behavior, list-replacement semantics for services, the type-switch guard (only with no Clients/Sites), the free-tier migration rule, that licenseTier/billingCycle are not editable here, and the attributable-user auth requirement.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the field list, and every clause carries a constraint. It is dense but never padded; only mild cost is that the constraint clauses run together in a long block.

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?

Complete for a mutation tool: side effects, clearing rules, guards, auth, and failure recovery are all covered, and the existing output schema removes any need to document return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage over 7 params, the description carries the full burden and does: per-field null semantics, nonblank name constraint, non-nullable fields, list replacement vs clearing, and the business/agency enum values.

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?

States a specific verb (edit) and resource (the current Account) and enumerates the exact editable fields. The scope word 'current Account' cleanly separates it from the many update_client/update_site/update_topic siblings.

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?

Explicitly states the minimum requirement ('supply at least one edit'), the no-op semantics of omitted fields, the auth precondition, and the recovery path ('after an uncertain write inspect get_account before retrying'). It also names exclusions (no creation/deletion, no external research, no Scan).

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