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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations: the shared AIsa workspace with no per-caller isolation, and the fact that omitted fields retain their current values. It also reinforces the destructive/mutating nature implied by the annotations. This is valuable, non-obvious context that an agent needs to anticipate side effects.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scope. Every sentence contributes: purpose, partial-update semantics, stage field reference, and shared-workspace warning. No filler or redundancy.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it (partial update), a key parameter dependency, and a side-effect warning about shared workspace. It is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential usage semantics: the partial-update behavior (omit fields to keep current value) directly informs which parameters to include. It also clarifies that the account_stage_id must be a valid id from get_apollo_account_stages, which is not in the schema. This goes beyond the bare field descriptions.

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 the action ('Update one account by its Apollo id') and distinguishes it from batch operations (post_apollo_accounts_bulk_update) and create (post_apollo_accounts). It is specific about the resource and the granularity (one account), leaving no ambiguity.

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 explains the partial-update usage (send only fields to change) and explicitly links the account_stage_id parameter to get_apollo_account_stages. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for multi-account updates or exclusions, but the single-account scope is clear. The guidance is adequate but could be more explicit about when to use bulk vs single.

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