cwp_account_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only that the account must already exist; it says nothing about required privileges, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether a quota/bandwidth change disrupts the account, or what the call returns.

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 zero padding. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than truly concise given the seven-parameter mutation surface.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits mutation side effects, permission requirements, and partial-update semantics that an agent would need before invoking it.

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 100%, so each of the seven parameters is already documented with type and purpose in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or constraint guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ("Update") and resource ("an existing CWP account"), so the agent knows it mutates an existing account rather than creating one. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like cwp_account_create, cwp_account_suspend, or cwp_account_reset_password beyond the implied mutation semantics.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. With siblings for suspend, delete, reset_password, quota_check, etc., the description should at least indicate this is for changing account settings rather than state changes, but it offers nothing.

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