update_deleted_account_details

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the update applies to all historical entries for the deleted source, and passing null clears a field. It also implies the operation is non-destructive to the deleted account itself. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by scope and a usage rule. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted wording.

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 simple update tool with 7 params (all but one optional) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the null-clearing convention. It adequately addresses the required-field rule and the effect on historical entries, making it complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the 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 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds a cross-cutting semantic: 'pass null to clear a field', which is not present in any individual parameter description. This extra meaning raises the score above the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('display details for a deleted account') with scope ('in the Net Worth views'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools. It also clarifies it applies to all historical entries for that deleted source, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (for deleted accounts) and includes a key usage rule ('At least one field must be provided; pass null to clear a field'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it falls 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.