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

The annotations already declare mutation, idempotence, and non-destructiveness, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: email is immutable, and managers explicitly cannot set passwords here, with recovery handled through the account itself. It could go further on permission requirements or side effects, but it adds solid context for a mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded: the first clause states what is updated and which fields are involved. Subsequent sentences handle exclusions efficiently, and the trailing EN search terms do not interfere with readability. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a non-destructive, idempotent mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key fields, the required profile context via schema, and important exclusions. It does not mention authorization level or response behavior, but annotations and schema cover the core safety and parameter details. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description lists the key updatable fields and clarifies that email is excluded, but it does not add format, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: changing master data of a managed account, naming displayname, organisation, phone, and notes. It also clarifies that email is immutable and that password setting is not part of this tool, which helps distinguish it from password-related operations. It does not explicitly mention the sibling `change_profile`, so sibling differentiation is good but not fully complete.

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 gives clear usage context: use this for managed-account profile fields, not for email or password changes. It provides an alternative path for passwords (account self-recovery), but does not name specific sibling tools such as `change_password` or `change_profile`, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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