Editar Conta

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

The description discloses that the tool requires confirm=true to execute, adding behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with these, confirming it is a mutation that must be explicitly confirmed.

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 very concise at one sentence, but it lacks structure and depth. It front-loads the confirm requirement, but it does not organize information or earn its place beyond stating a single constraint.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no schema coverage, and is destructive with idempotency, the description should provide more context about side effects, return values (though output schema exists), and parameter roles. The description is too minimal for adequate use.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions the confirm parameter. The other 5 parameters (id, logo, name, balance_cents, include_total_balance) are completely undiscussed, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.

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 explicitly states the tool edits a manual account, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like despezzas_create_account and despezzas_delete_account, though it could be more explicit about what types of accounts are editable.

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 only provides a requirement for the confirm parameter but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no comparison to siblings like despezzas_list_accounts or despezzas_create_account.

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