update_manual_account

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the obvious update operation NK. It does not mention partial-update semantics, how missing fields are handled, whether null values clear fields, or any permission requirements. The idempotentHint annotation covers idempotency, but the description itself contributes little.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with the core action stated in the first clause. The 'Formerly update_asset' note is a minor useful migration hint and not excessive. However, the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral substance, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is far too thin. It fails to explain update semantics, the scope of mutable fields, or how this relates to the surrounding manual-account workflow. An agent would still need to infer most invocation requirements from the schema alone.

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 9%, and the description provides no additional meaning for any of the 11 parameters. It does not mention updatable fields, required accountId, or the meaning of optional fields like closed_on or exclude_from_transactions. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing manually-managed account'), which distinguishes it from crypto, synced, and Plaid account tools. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_deleted_account_details, but the resource phrase is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as update_manual_crypto, create_manual_account, or delete_manual_account. The description simply states the action without explaining which scenarios warrant this tool or when to choose an alternative.

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