Update Account

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), so the description is not carrying that burden. It still adds real behavior: omitted fields are preserved (partial update), balance on synced accounts will be overwritten by refresh, and the response is the compact updated account.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by a compact parameter list; every entry earns its place given the zero schema coverage. The Args formatting is slightly verbose but not wasteful, and the closing sentence covers the precondition and return value efficiently.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with an output schema already defined, the description covers the update contract, all parameter semantics, the at-least-one-change requirement, and annotations handle safety. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 supply all parameter meaning, and it does for every one of the six — including non-obvious semantics like account_id originating from get_accounts and balance being meaningful only for manual accounts. The boolean flags are explained in domain terms (net worth, accounts list, budgets/reports) rather than restating their titles.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Update an account's settings') and states the partial-update contract ('leaving omitted fields unchanged'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as create_manual_account, though pointing to get_accounts for the identifier gives partial routing context.

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?

'Provide at least one change' establishes a precondition for invocation, and the balance note ('meant for manual accounts, since synced accounts refresh theirs') is an explicit when-not-to-use signal for one parameter. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for creating versus refreshing accounts.

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