Updates an existing VCF Automation service account by ID, enabling changes to its name, assigned roles, status, or token rotation settings.
Updates a service account PUT /cloudapi/1.0.0/serviceAccounts/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Service account ID URN (path) | |
| body | Yes | An account to be used for non-interactive VMware Cloud Director access. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the annotation title, which is itself the same PUT path: no mention of required roles/permissions, that the body replaces the account definition, or what happens to fields omitted from the body.
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?
Two short lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The second line largely duplicates the annotation title, so it is close to waste, but the definition is not padded.
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?
Annotations supply the safety profile and the schema is fully described, so the minimum is met. However, for a mutation on a security-sensitive resource with a large nested body (roles, tokenRotation, requireRotation), the description leaves unclear whether omitted fields are reset, whether roles can be changed here, and whether the updated entity is returned.
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 both parameters (id URN and the nested body) are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description contributes no additional meaning about the id format or which body fields are mutable.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Updates a service account") plus the underlying endpoint PUT /cloudapi/1.0.0/serviceAccounts/{id}, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as provider_query_service_accounts, provider_revoke_service_account, or provider_update_user, which is what would be needed for a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says whether this is a full replace or a merge, what preconditions exist (account must exist, must be ACTIVE/GRANTED), or which sibling to use for read/revoke flows. The PUT method weakly implies mutation, but the agent must infer everything else.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.