openai_update_service_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It states the operation is an 'Update' (mutation) and that it affects 'name and/or role,' implying partial updates. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or behavior for invalid inputs. It lacks rich behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single concise sentence followed by a clean Args block. Every line serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded with the core verb. No fluff or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description provides a solid but not complete picture. It covers the operation and parameter semantics, and references sibling tools for ID discovery. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance (e.g., when to use vs. alternatives) and does not mention any prerequisites like required permissions or error behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The input schema has zero descriptions, so the description's Args section adds necessary meaning. It explains each parameter, including the valid values for role ('owner' or 'member'), and provides guidance on how to get project_id and service_account_id. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify that name and role are optional and at least one is likely expected, though 'name and/or role' implies this.

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 clearly states the action: 'Update a service account's name and/or role.' It specifically identifies the resource (service account) and the fields being modified, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_service_account, delete_service_account, or update_project_user_role.

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 Args section provides clear context by referencing how to obtain required IDs: 'see openai_list_projects' and 'see openai_list_service_accounts.' This implies the user should first call those list tools to get valid IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as not for updating user roles.

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