navvi_account

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

Description discloses the CRUD behavior via examples but does not elaborate on side effects, such as whether delete is permanent or if updates require specific permissions. Without annotations, more explicit behavior details would be beneficial.

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 front-loaded with a summary, followed by examples, then a conceptual note. It is efficient, though the examples could be slightly condensed without losing clarity.

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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, actions, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema compensates for missing return value details, making the description complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by showing parameter usage in context (e.g., creds_ref='gopass://...', status='blocked'). This clarifies format and purpose beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Manage accounts linked to a persona' and enumerates actions (add, list, update, delete). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like navvi_creds or navvi_persona, which handle different concerns.

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?

Examples for each action provide clear when-to-use guidance (e.g., adding an account requires persona, service, email, creds_ref). However, no explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to alternatives like navvi_creds for credential management.

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