account

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

Annotations already indicate read/write and destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: connect_email uses Unipile hosted auth, refresh_tier 'heals' stored tier flags, and unlink disconnects the current account. This gives an agent a clearer model of side effects without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured and scannable: a one-line purpose, formatted argument explanations, and a critical warning. Every line adds information, and the format makes the six action variants easy to parse without unnecessary prose.

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 multi-action tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers all actions, argument requirements, the default behavior, and a hard constraint ('Never use Mail.app'). Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly appears to be missing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It fully enumerates all action values with plain-language meanings and explains account_id as the Unipile account ID with a clear required condition. This is exactly what the schema lacked.

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 opens with a clear action and resource: 'Manage your LinkedIn accounts' and enumerates concrete operations (list, switch, disconnect). The list of action values makes the tool's scope easy to grasp and distinguishes it from the many messaging/prospecting siblings, though the opening phrase doesn't mention the email-account aspect covered by connect_email.

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?

It provides operational guidance for the action argument, notes that 'list' is the default, says account_id is required for switch_to, and warns 'Never use Mail.app'. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, relying instead on the action list to imply usage.

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