update_my_account

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: empty fields are ignored ('empty = leave alone'), indicating a partial update. It also ties the operation to the API-key owner. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., email verification, token invalidation) or error behavior, leaving the agent to assume a typical update.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a concise parameter list. Each sentence earns its place, and the 'Args' formatting makes the parameter semantics scannable. No redundant or filler text.

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 self-service update tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and update mode. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this instead of update_user, and it does not mention side effects, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output 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?

The input schema has zero descriptions for the three parameters. The description fully compensates by documenting each parameter in the Args section, including the critical semantic that an empty string means 'leave alone.' This goes beyond simply restating names by providing essential usage detail.

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 the account of the user that owns the API key.' This is a specific verb (Update) and resource (account of the API-key owner), and it inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like update_user by scoping to the current user.

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 — it updates the account of the API key owner. It also explains the partial-update behavior with 'empty = leave alone.' However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like update_user or state exclusions, 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.