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

destructiveHint=true tells the agent this mutates data, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond that: PATCH semantics mean only passed fields change (so unlisted fields survive), the type must match, and addresses are out of scope. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but the partial-update guarantee is the highest-value disclosure for a write 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?

Four tight sentences: what changes, how partial updates behave, the type precondition, and the scope exclusion, with the PATCH endpoint mapping last. Every sentence carries distinct information and the mutation scope is front-loaded.

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 12-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation model, a prerequisite, and an exclusion. It omits only secondary details like the response shape and failure behavior, which is minor given the thorough schema.

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 every one of the 12 parameters is already documented, including the type enum and the field-to-payload mappings. The description lists a subset of the same fields without adding syntax, formats, or constraints, so it earns only the baseline.

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 and resource ('Change an account's') and enumerates the editable fields, which cleanly separates it from neon_create_account and neon_get_account. No sibling is named explicitly, but the update verb makes the distinction obvious without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite ('The type must match the account (see neon_get_account)') and a boundary ('Addresses are not edited here'), plus the partial-update rule. It stops short of naming when to use update vs create or where address edits should go, so no explicit alternative is routed.

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