update_email_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation operation ('update') but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The mention of 'message limits' hints at constraints but lacks specifics.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It uses parentheses to compactly list example settings without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating core function from examples.

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 complex mutation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on behavioral traits, error handling, side effects, and output format. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more contextual guidance than provided.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters. The description adds marginal value by grouping parameters into categories like 'SMTP/IMAP credentials' and 'message limits', but doesn't explain interactions (e.g., if 'type' affects which other parameters are relevant) or provide usage context beyond the 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 the verb 'update' and the resource 'email account settings', with specific examples like SMTP/IMAP credentials and message limits. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_email_account' by focusing on updates rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like 'update_campaign_settings'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing email account ID), differentiate from similar update tools (e.g., 'update_campaign_settings'), or specify use cases like correcting misconfigured accounts versus changing limits.

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