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

With annotations already marking destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable context by clarifying that archiving preserves history while removing the account from lists. It does not go further into reversibility or unarchive behavior, but the description meaningfully supplements the annotation signal without contradicting it.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and uses a parenthetical to clarify the archive side effect. There is no filler repetition of the title or redundant schema information.

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 mutating tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main update scenarios and the most important behavioral side effect. It does not need to describe return values because an output schema exists; minor completeness gaps are unarchiving and null-clearing semantics.

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?

Given the description carries most of the parameter burden due to 0% schema coverage, it successfully explains the main update scenarios and the meaning of archive. The natural-language coverage addresses five of the six parameters explicitly, though the required id is not described beyond its property name and nullable 'clear this field' behavior is not mentioned.

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 clearly states a concrete action ('Rename an account') and enumerates the editable attributes: bank/country/last-4 and archived. It also states the key consequence of archiving ('keep their history but leave every list'), which gives it a distinct purpose from creation or list operations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

There is a clear implied usage context: call this tool when you need to rename an existing account, correct its bank/country/last-4, or archive it. However, it never explicitly routes the agent to alternatives such as create_account or set_account_balance, and it does not state when not to use this tool.

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