update_mail_account

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: PATCH semantics, partial updates, and the special rule that omitting password preserves the stored one. The password masking behavior is already in the schema, but the description reinforces the key call-time behavior. There is no contradiction with the idempotentHint or destructiveHint 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?

The description is a single tight sentence that front-loads the core action and scope ('Update fields on ONE mail account') and then provides essential PATCH behavior. Every clause earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 an update tool with 11 parameters, the description covers the most critical contextual rule: partial updates and password retention. The schema already documents required id, valid ranges, and most field meanings. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since the description and annotations provide sufficient information for correct invocation.

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 description adds meaningful parameter behavior: only supplied fields are updated, and omitting password retains the existing one. However, schema description coverage is only 55%, and several parameters (id, name, owner, username, imap_server) remain undocumented in both the schema and description. The added PATCH semantics help, but the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('mail account'), and emphasizes 'ONE' account, which clearly distinguishes this from any bulk or list operation. Mentioning PATCH further clarifies the exact HTTP behavior. This is immediately actionable for an agent.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for modifying a single existing mail account and that fields are only changed when supplied. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the CRUD context and sibling list make the usage obvious. It provides enough context to decide when to call it without needing exclusions.

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