Update account

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is the optimistic-locking requirement and the fact that the sequence is auto-read when omitted — genuinely useful behavior not in the annotations. The null-clearing rule also signals that clearing a field is a destructive act, which supports the destructiveHint. It does not explain what happens to omitted fields (partial vs. full replacement), leaving one behavioral 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?

Three short sentences: the primary capability first, then the locking constraint, then the null-clearing rule. Nothing is redundant with the schema and no sentence is filler.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent would otherwise get wrong: concurrency handling and how to clear optional fields. The remaining gap is whether unspecified fields are preserved, which matters for a partial update on a destructive tool.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the highest-risk semantics: passing null to description/displayId clears them, a detail absent from the schema. It also reinforces 'rename' as the effect of the name parameter and explains the sequence auto-fetch. businessId is left to the schema alone and the name/displayId distinction could be sharper, so it is 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?

The description states a concrete verb-and-resource pair — rename an account or change its description/number — which is clearly distinct from wave_create_account, wave_archive_account, and wave_get_account. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: updating an existing account (as opposed to creating or archiving one). There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites section, and no statement of when to prefer wave_get_account first or when to use the archive path instead. The one operational hint — sequence is fetched automatically when omitted — helps execution but is not routing guidance.

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