update_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states whether this is a partial update (omitted fields left untouched) or a full replace, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the affected fields without filler. Efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage needs substantially more than one sentence. An agent cannot tell how omitted parameters behave or what a successful update returns.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does name four of six fields in prose (title, inBalance, savings, enableSMS), but leaves enableCorrection and the required id entirely unexplained, and gives no meaning for the boolean toggles (e.g., what 'учёт баланса' actually changes).

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 gives a specific verb ('Изменить') and resource ('счёт') and enumerates the mutable aspects: name, balance accounting, savings status, SMS settings. This is clearly distinguishable from create_account and archive_account, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_account or archive_account, no prerequisites (does the account need to exist? be unarchived?), and no note on which fields may be changed together. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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