tempo_update_account

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

The description goes far beyond the sparse annotations (destructiveHint=true) by disclosing the read-modify-write behavior, the merge of omitted fields, the refusal if the resource changes between preview and confirm, and the two-phase confirmation mechanism. This is exactly the behavioral depth an agent needs to avoid destructive mistakes.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the essential merge semantics and confirmation mechanics in a logical order. There is zero redundancy, and despite its length, it remains tightly scoped.

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?

Given the complexity of an update tool with conditional confirmation and potential data loss, the description covers all operational essentials: what fields to provide, how merging works, what triggers a refusal, and how the two-step fallback works. No output schema exists, but the description explains the response phases sufficiently. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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?

While the schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds critical global semantics: the merge behavior for omitted fields and the precise role of confirmToken (never on first call, never invented). This is indispensable meaning that the schema alone does not convey.

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 opens with 'Update an existing Tempo account by its key,' which is a specific verb (update), a clear resource (Tempo account), and the identifying key. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like tempo_create_account, tempo_delete_account, and tempo_get_account, so an agent can immediately recognize its purpose.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Supply only the fields to change' and explains the critical merge behavior, including the underlying reason (Tempo's PUT replaces the whole resource). It also details the confirmation flow and the two-step token fallback, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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