make_default_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the previously-default account is unset, whether default=false unsets the flag, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains — notable gaps for a mutation.

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?

Very short, but the core sentence is duplicated verbatim ('Make user account default' appears twice), and the duplicated phrase adds no information. The endpoint path is the only non-redundant content.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation with a nested body and no output schema, the description leaves key behavior unstated: the effect on any existing default account, the meaning of default=false, and what is returned. It is not sufficient on its own.

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%, with tenantId, customerId, x-trace-id and the nested body.default boolean all documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional semantics about the path identifiers or the boolean's effect.

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 restates the tool name ('Make user account default') and appends the HTTP route PATCH /v1/me/account/{tenantId}/{customerId}, which confirms it mutates the caller's account record. However, it never distinguishes this from nearby siblings such as switch_account or list_user_accounts, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of these to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g. the account must already belong to the caller), and no mention of alternatives like switch_account. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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