rh11_account_update_profile

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the requirement that at least one field is required. This is useful but does not disclose other behavioral traits like return value or permissions. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and fields, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple with three string parameters and full schema coverage. The description covers the purpose and the main constraint. While it doesn't mention the return value, the lack of an output schema makes this less critical, and idempotency annotation adds safety 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?

Schema descriptions cover all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful constraint that at least one field must be provided, which is not reflected in the schema's required list. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 tool updates Rhodium11 account profile fields and lists the exact fields (first_name, last_name, company). This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like rh11_account_get and rh11_account_get_subscription.

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 implies the use case: updating profile fields when a user wants to change these attributes. Among siblings, this is the only profile update tool, so context is clear. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions, but none are needed.

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