update_account_credentials

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful blast-radius information — other accounts and mail mapping are left intact — which is real value beyond structured data. However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether the password is validated before writing, reversibility, or what happens to the account's existing username when the optional parameter is omitted.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the non-destructive scope constraint is stated up front. It is efficient rather than padded, though it is arguably too sparse for a write operation.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, three undocumented parameters, and only one short sentence, key information is missing: which fields are actually changed, how the optional username behaves, and whether identity verification is required. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input-side and safety picture is incomplete.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. "Credentials" gestures vaguely at password/username, but account_id is never mentioned and the critical behavior of the optional username (default "") — whether an empty value wipes the existing username — is left completely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Correct ... credentials") and scopes it to a single inactive account, which distinguishes it from broad siblings like import_accounts, login_accounts, or add_parallel_learning_accounts. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the operation and its blast radius are unambiguous.

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?

"Inactive account's credentials" implies the situation (a broken/inactive login that needs fixing rather than creating or activating an account), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus activate_learning_account, login_accounts, or import_accounts. The "without replacing other accounts" clause hints at alternatives without naming them.

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