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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond listing field names already present in the schema. It does not clarify partial-update semantics or that only provided fields are changed, which is important for an update 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a non-exhaustive, concise list of example fields. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description gives a high-level overview but omits key nuances like whether omitted fields are left unchanged. However, the output schema and parameter descriptions fill most gaps, making it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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%, and the schema provides descriptions for all 15 parameters, including enum options and 'null to clear' semantics. The description's field list adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 uses the verb 'Update' with a specific resource 'CRM account/customer profile' and lists example fields (name, phone, email, life stage, owner, notes, member code). This is specific enough to distinguish from create/delete account tools, though update_contact is a sibling.

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 usage for updating account profile fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like update_contact or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.

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