Manage account

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the deletion permission/confirmation requirement, which is useful, but it does not disclose how Preview/Apply mode works, the role of confirmation_token, or side effects of hide/unhide/reorder operations. Significant behavioral ambiguity remains for a mutating tool.

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, compact sentence that efficiently lists all operations and the key deletion prerequisite. It avoids fluff and is easy to parse, though it could arguably include more detail without becoming overly long.

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?

This is a complex, multi-operation tool with seven parameters and deeply nested objects, yet the description only covers operation types and a single permission caveat. It omits critical context such as which parameters are needed for each operation, mode semantics, confirmation flow, and return behavior. The overall completeness is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters. The meanings of operation, mode, patch, orders, account, account_ref, and confirmation_token are entirely unclear from the description, leaving the complex nested schema as the only source of information. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies multiple account operations (create, update, hide, unhide, reorder, delete) with a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes this tool from sibling account-related tools like list_accounts and from tag/category management 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?

The description provides one usage condition (deletion requires admin profile and Preview/Apply) but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage context is implied by the tool name and operation list rather than explicitly spelled out.

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