accelo_update_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet only implies a mutation via the word "Update." It does not state whether absent fields are left unchanged (partial update), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. The Args block documents inputs but not behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, followed by a tight, scannable Args list. Slight redundancy with schema titles, but each line adds a semantic hint and nothing is padded.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs reasonably well but omits behavioral context an agent needs to call it safely. Partial-update semantics and permission requirements are the notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all 13 parameters, marks id as required, and adds non-obvious semantics such as postal/physical accepting "yes" or "no" and fields controlling returned values. This is meaningful value beyond the bare schema property titles.

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 ("Update") and resource ("address") and includes "existing," which signals a mutation on a pre-existing record rather than a create. It is clearly distinguishable from accelo_create_address / accelo_get_address, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_address or how to obtain the required id. No prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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