update_accountModify your AltText.ai account details—name, webhook URL, or notification email—to control where processing notifications are sent.
Update your AltText.ai account settings (name, webhook URL, notification email)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Account name | |
| webhook_url | No | Webhook URL for processing notifications | |
| notification_email | No | Email address for notifications |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Input schema / properties / notification_email / patternPrevious value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate that this is a mutating, destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds scoping by listing the three settings affected, but it does not clarify partial-update behavior, replacement semantics, or consequences beyond the annotation flags. It does not contradict the 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?
A single front-loaded sentence immediately states the action, resource, and affected fields. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.
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 optional-field account update, the description combined with schema and annotations is sufficient for an agent to understand why and how to invoke it. The only notable omission is explicit confirmation of partial-update semantics and the response shape.
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 100%, with each parameter already well documented. The description merely repeats the field names and adds no format, constraint, or usage nuance beyond what the schema provides.
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 verb 'Update' targets a specific resource, 'AltText.ai account settings', and enumerates the exact fields affected (name, webhook URL, notification email). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account and update_image.
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?
It clearly identifies the tool as the one for modifying account-level settings rather than images or generation tasks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is plain and unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.