tempo_update_account

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false): it discloses the read-merge-write strategy, that the read runs on every call, the preview/confirm handshake, the confirmToken fallback for clients without elicitation, and critically that a resource changed between preview and confirm is refused rather than overwritten. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating a resource.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then layered merge semantics and the confirmation flow. Every sentence carries information, though the confirmation paragraph is dense and could be tightened; it is appropriately sized for a tool with this much hidden behavior.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what the preview contains and how the confirmed call behaves. For a 9-parameter mutation with a non-obvious merge and confirmation protocol, nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: omitted fields are preserved via a server-side merge, and confirmToken must only be passed on a repeat call after explicit user approval. It does not add format/syntax detail for the individual account fields beyond what the schema documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('Update an existing Tempo account by its key'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (tempo_create_account, tempo_delete_account, tempo_get_account) that an agent might confuse it with, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear operating guidance: 'Supply only the fields to change' and 'Fields you omit keep their current values', plus the full confirmation protocol. It does not state when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g., create vs update vs delete), so it stops short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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