sb_update_sub_account_access_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool updates settings, without mentioning mutation effects, permission requirements, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for an update operation.

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 concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices completeness. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to convey necessary context, making it barely adequate.

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 output schema in the description and 8 parameters with no explanation, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or usage patterns, leaving the agent underinformed 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%, meaning the description adds no value beyond the schema's parameter titles. The description does not explain what 'access/protocol settings' entail or how parameters like samba_enabled, ssh_enabled, etc., relate. The agent must infer semantics from names.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'a sub-account's access / protocol settings', distinguishing it from sibling tools like sb_update_sub_account (updates other sub-account details) and sb_update_storage_box_access_settings. This specificity helps an agent select the correct tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions provided. The description lacks context for decision-making, forcing the agent to infer from the name and schema alone.

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