Update a PowerOffice general ledger account

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: only mutable account paths are accepted, and confirm=true must only be set after the user explicitly approves the exact changes. This helps the agent avoid destructive or unauthorized modifications. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the endpoint, operation type, mutation constraint, and the critical confirmation requirement. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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?

The description provides the key operational details: what is updated, how it is updated, what restrictions apply, and when confirm may be true. The output schema covers return values, so no additional response description is needed. It could be more complete by listing which account paths are mutable, but that is a minor gap.

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 schema documents only the confirm parameter, leaving id and patch with no description. The description compensates by clarifying that patch paths must be mutable and that confirm is an explicit user-approval flag. While id still lacks explanation, its purpose is evident from the endpoint.

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: updating a single general ledger account using JSON Patch, and specifies the exact endpoint. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_general_ledger_account and list_general_ledger_accounts by emphasizing 'Update one' and the PATCH method.

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?

It is clear this tool is for modifying an existing general ledger account by id. It provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives, but the 'Update one' phrasing and endpoint make the intended context unambiguous.

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