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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds a small amount of context by emphasizing the account must already exist and that Id/SyncToken are required, but it does not disclose side effects such as sparse vs full update behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential action and the most important requirement immediately.

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?

Although the description itself is brief, the input schema's entity description is very rich and covers sparse updates, full updates, restrictions, and the Active:false retirement pattern. Together with annotations, the definition provides enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the input schema carries the burden of explaining entity and company parameters. The description only repeats the Id/SyncToken requirement already documented in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific action ('Update'), a specific resource ('existing account in QuickBooks Online'), and a key precondition ('requires Id and SyncToken'). This clearly distinguishes it from create_account and the many other update_* tools.

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 implies an update workflow by requiring Id and SyncToken, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus create/delete/search alternatives. The richer guidance lives in the input schema rather than in the description text.

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