account_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that a FAILED probe downgrades effective modes (writes collapse to prep, reads flagged) and that this is evaluation-only with no platform contact or credentials. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether unspecified fields are preserved or replaced on update.

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 tight clauses: verb+resource first, then field inventory, then the behavioral caveat. No filler, though the parenthetical field list is dense and slightly harder to scan than a structured enumeration would be.

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 nine-parameter tool with nested objects and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the important mechanics (probe downgrade, evaluation-only) but leaves the required key and two other properties unexplained, and gives no hint about what the call returns after a downgrade.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does explain platform, adapter, owner, role, modes (capability -> mode) and the probe sub-fields {status, at, terms_version}. But it never mentions account_id (the sole required parameter) or account_type and connection_state, leaving three of nine properties undocumented anywhere.

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 pair (register/update) and resource (authorized account), then enumerates the fields it carries. An agent can distinguish it from account_inventory, but the description never names that sibling or says how the two differ.

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?

'Register/update' implies the create-or-upsert context of use, and the probe-downgrade sentence hints at when you would re-set an account. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. account_inventory for read-only lookups).

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