pennylane_update_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context by enumerating exactly which fields may change, but says nothing about permissions, side effects on lettrage, or reversibility.

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 that states the action and the affected fields with no filler. Efficient, though extremely terse given the tool mutates accounting data.

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 narrow two-field update on a resource with an output schema present, the description is adequate: return-value details are covered by the output schema and param details by the schema. Only behavioral/permission context is thin.

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 coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters (label, letterable) are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely names the same two fields, adding no syntax, format, or default-value meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb (Modifie) and resource (un compte existant) with the precise scope of modifiable fields (libellé, statut lettrable). The phrase 'compte existant' implicitly distinguishes it from pennylane_create_account, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'compte existant' — the agent can infer this is for editing rather than creating, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as create_account or get_account.

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