update_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies mutation via the verb 'update' but does not state side effects, reversibility, what happens to unspecified fields, authentication requirements, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It lacks structure or front-loaded detail; the sentence earns no informative weight beyond restating the tool's name.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far from complete. It omits any explanation of update semantics, return values, error behavior, or field-specific expectations, making it inadequate 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names (id, name, active) already visible in the schema, providing no guidance on formats, optionality semantics, or relationships between fields.

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 specific verb (update) and resource (account), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create/delete operations. It is clear but could be more specific about which fields are updatable; however, the input schema already enumerates them, so this is sufficient.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_account, create_account, or delete_account. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer everything.

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