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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the 'WRITE:' prefix is largely redundant. The one genuine addition beyond structured data is the partial-update guarantee ('only the fields you pass are changed'), which is meaningful. It says nothing about overwrite risk behind destructiveHint, permission requirements, or error behavior on invalid ids.

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?

One sentence plus an endpoint reference, front-loaded with the WRITE signal and the key scoping rule. Nothing is padding.

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 15-parameter mutation the description nails the update semantics and the schema documents every field, so an agent can call it correctly. Minor gaps remain: no mention that account_id must come from a lookup/list, and no output schema or note on what the call returns.

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% across all 15 parameters, including the tricky number_of_employees bucket codes and the cf_-prefixed custom_field object, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the general partial-update rule, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome.

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 fields of an existing account), the resource, and the HTTP operation, plus the '(company)' gloss that disambiguates 'account'. It is immediately distinguishable from create_account and get_account 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?

'change fields of an existing account' plus 'only the fields you pass are changed' tells the agent exactly when this applies (partial update of a record that already exists). It does not name alternatives such as freshsales_get_account for reading or freshsales_create_account for new records, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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