Accounts Update Account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The phrase 'This may create or update Monarch data' adds a small human-readable warning about side effects and aligns with openWorldHint. It does not reveal what specific Monarch records can be affected, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is acceptable.

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 only two short sentences and the first is essentially a restatement of the title. The second sentence is vague and does not replace the missing usage or parameter details. This is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness for a 12-parameter tool.

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?

With 12 parameters, a 17% schema coverage, no output schema, and a large CRUD sibling set, the definition leaves too much to inference. An agent can infer the basic update action but cannot determine valid field values, output behavior, or how this update affects Monarch data. The annotations help, but the description remains incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, yet the description contributes no parameter-level meaning. It never explains account_id behavior, valid types, balance/subtype semantics, owner_user_id, deactivated_at format, or the boolean visibility flags. The description therefore fails to compensate for the mostly undocumented schema.

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 states a concrete action on a concrete resource: 'Update account.' The required account_id and the update verb make the intent clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as accounts_create_manual_account or accounts_get_account, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 tool versus the related accounts_* tools. It never says to use accounts_get_account for reads, accounts_create_manual_account for new accounts, or accounts_delete_account for removals. Only the name and the word 'update' imply the intended context.

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