Update an existing account's details including name, contact information, address, time zone, tags, and logo.
Updates an account.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "putaccount"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestBody | No | Account |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.20Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only indicates a write operation ('updates'), but since no annotations are provided, it carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention idempotency, required permissions, partial vs full update, or what happens on success/failure. Critical behavioral traits are absent.
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 extremely brief (one sentence), but this brevity sacrifices completeness. While it is front-loaded, it does not earn its place because it adds no value over the tool name. More context could be provided in the same length.
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 the complexity (one parameter with many nested fields, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the update behavior (e.g., PATCH-like or PUT-like), required fields, or response expectations. The schema helps, but the tool description lacks essential usage context.
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 100% description coverage for nested fields (e.g., 'The account id', 'The fax number'), so the schema provides detailed parameter semantics. The top-level parameter description 'Account' is vague but not misleading. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Updates an account.' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (account). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like getaccount or deleteaccount, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., putaccount vs patchaccount if it existed). No context on prerequisites or typical use cases. The description is purely functional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.