update_deleted_account_details

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses a nontrivial side effect: changes apply to all historical entries for that deleted source, and null clears fields. This gives the agent important awareness of the update's global reach. It does not mention authorization or rollback, but the annotations and expected update semantics cover the main safety expectations.

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?

Three short sentences, all informative. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the constraint and clearing semantics are stated in minimal, unambiguous wording.

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 a simple seven-parameter update with a complete schema and no nested objects, the description covers the critical context: historical-entry scope, the at-least-one-field requirement, and null semantics. The only minor gap is the absence of a return-value description, but no output schema exists to clarify it.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds value by stating that at least one field must be provided and by clarifying that null means 'clear this field', which the per-parameter schema descriptions do not explicitly communicate.

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?

Identifies the exact operation (update), the exact target (display details of a deleted account), and the affected scope (Net Worth views / historical entries). This distinguishes it from the many other update_* siblings, none of which target deleted-account display metadata.

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 states when it applies: to deleted accounts shown in Net Worth views. It also gives practical usage guidance: at least one field must be provided and null clears a field. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the deleted-account scope makes the choice unambiguous against the sibling list.

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