Modify an existing KikoBooks chart-of-accounts entry by ID, including name, description, type code, or parent account. Use it to correct or reorganize accounts.
Update an existing account in the KikoBooks chart of accounts. Provide the account ID and the fields to update.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | ||
| account_id | Yes | The GL Account ID to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It does not say whether this is a partial or full replacement update, what happens to fields omitted from the 'account' object, whether permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible/auditable.
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?
Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is mildly boilerplate but does point the caller at the two required inputs.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested object parameter, and only 50% schema coverage should do considerably more. Missing partial-update semantics, required-account existence assumptions, and failure behavior leave real gaps for an agent.
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 only 50%, and the description adds no field-level meaning beyond 'the fields to update'. The nested 'account' object itself has no schema description, and the description does not clarify partial-update semantics for accountName, description, accountTypeCode, or parentGLAccountId.
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+resource ('Update an existing account') and scopes it to the 'KikoBooks chart of accounts', which is clear enough to separate it from create_account/get_account/search_accounts by naming convention. It lacks an explicit contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 second sentence ('Provide the account ID and the fields to update') is a parameter instruction, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to use this versus create_account (new account) or get_account (read), nor any prerequisite or state requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.