update_account

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a write operation, requires a scope, lists all field constraints (max lengths, ISO code, enum values), and notes important limitations (login email unchanged, currency not settable). This is thorough and transparent.

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 concise (5 sentences) and well-structured, with the action and scope upfront, followed by field details and caveats. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers input and behavior. It mentions that the account currency is not settable, which is a notable constraint. It could optionally mention the response format, but this is not required.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing fields in a readable format and providing key context (e.g., distinguishing billing/contact email from login email, clarifying that taxId is optional, and noting the language enum). This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 that the tool updates the account's billing/contact profile, specifying the resource (account) and action (update). It distinguishes itself by noting what is NOT updated (login email, currency), and the sibling list includes many read-only or different update tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly requires scope account:write, calls it a plain write not gated, and states that every field is optional. This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the specific purpose and sibling list provide enough differentiation.

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