anon_patch_accounts_account_id

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false), the description discloses real side effects the agent could not infer: switching mode to non-full clears the password, and password handling differs by cipherKeySource and mode. It also surfaces the auth requirement (accounts:manage plus visibility scope), which is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then permission, then field/password rules, then the endpoint. Every clause earns its place, including the note that projectId is auto-derived from the API key, which prevents a spurious parameter.

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 nested-body mutation with no output schema and destructive semantics, the description covers auth, the destructive side effect, and parameter modes. Remaining gaps (response shape, visibility array semantics) are minor and partly covered by the schema.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0% (body/path are bare), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates updatable body fields and explains the password/passwordCipher split and the mode-dependent clearing rule. It leaves cipherKeySource and the visibility empty-array semantics unstated (the latter only lives in the schema), so not a full 5.

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 (更新/PATCH) and resource (平台账号), and enumerates the updatable fields (platform/account/mode/note/visibility), so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like anon_post_accounts or anon_patch_members_user_id, but the resource is 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?

Gives concrete preconditions: requires accounts:manage and the caller must fall within the account's visibility scope. It also gives conditional guidance for the password path (server vs user, full mode only). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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