pbs_acme_account_update

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses mutation nature, dry-run default, synchronous execution with null return, and config requirement ('Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config').

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose and default, second adds risk and limitations, third explains execution behavior. No unnecessary words.

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?

Covers all critical aspects: mutation type, risk, dry-run, field limitations, execution semantics, return shape, and config dependency. No annotations or output schema needed for completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining confirm parameter's effect (dry-run vs execute return format), that contact is the only mutable field, and the purpose of proximo_target.

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 it's a mutation to update ACME account contact info, with dry-run by default. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that for deletion use pbs_acme_account_delete and that eab/tos fields are create-only.

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?

Explicitly provides risk level ('LOW risk — metadata update only, no cert impact'), field limitations ('PBS's PUT accepts ONLY contact'), and alternative tool for deletion. Also explains confirm parameter behavior for execution vs dry-run.

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