watchguardcloud_update_account

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' without explaining side effects, such as whether existing data is overwritten, whether the account must already exist, what authentication is required, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that starts with the action and resource. It contains no redundant words and is easy to parse quickly.

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 that this is a mutation tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., updated account object, success message), or how errors like nonexistent accounts are handled. An agent calling this would have no idea what to expect after executing it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It covers most of them by mapping 'name' and 'primary contact' to the name, firstName, lastName, and email fields. However, it does not explain that accountId is the identifier for the account to update, nor does it provide any constraint details (e.g., email format, uniqueness). It adds some meaning but not complete compensation.

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 action ('Update') and the resource (a managed account), and specifies the exact fields being changed ('name and primary contact'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_account, delete_account, and get_account, which are obviously different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_account should be used for new accounts, get_account for retrieval, or that this is the only way to modify account details. The usage context is only implicit from the tool name.

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