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

Adds context the annotations do not carry: omitted fields stay (partial/PATCH semantics), and a new email or callback_url triggers a notification to the previous account email. Combined with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the agent knows changes overwrite supplied fields but leave the rest intact. It does not say which values are rejected or what authorization is required.

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?

Two compact sentences, zero waste, with the field scope and 'omitted fields stay' semantics front-loaded before the notification side effect. Nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers partial-update semantics, the notification side effect, and account-type scope. It stops short of stating permission requirements or validation failures for a destructive, mutation-capable tool.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the US address shape and the 'empty string removes it' behavior for callback_url. The description only restates the field list, adding no syntax or constraint detail 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?

States a specific verb (Change) and resource (the agent account) and enumerates the exact mutable fields: name, organization, email, ship_to, callback_url. The trailing scope note 'Agent accounts only' separates it from create_agent_account and get_account without ambiguity.

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 'Agent accounts only' restriction tells the agent when the tool is applicable, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over create_agent_account or get_account, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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