Save Account Preferences

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint: false, which the description aligns with by saying 'Save.' The description adds the contextual detail that this is called by the wizard, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether existing preferences are overwritten, idempotency, or error conditions. Since the annotation already implies mutation, the added value is moderate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and immediately provides the call context. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, nested accounts array) and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it saves and when it is invoked. It could mention side effects like overwriting existing preferences, but for a save operation in a wizard flow, the current description is reasonably complete.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage, those descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Account preferences', 'Institution ID'). The tool description adds semantic meaning by explaining that the tool saves 'account selection and custom names,' which directly clarifies the purpose of the `selected` and `customName` fields. This goes beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('account preferences'), and clearly specifies what is saved ('account selection and custom names'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_account_preferences, rename_account, and toggle_account by indicating it's the write operation for preferences after connecting a bank.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Called by the wizard after the user configures their accounts' and 'after connecting a bank.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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