update_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers almost none. 'Update' implies mutation, but it never states whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether permissions are required, or how errors are surfaced. The one useful hint, the picklist/label caveat, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema coverage, this description is far too thin. It omits partial-update semantics, required vs optional behavior, and any reference to helper tools like list_field_choices or list_owners for the id-typed fields.

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?

With 16 parameters and only 13% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the gap and instead adds nothing — it names no updatable fields, no format rules, and no id-vs-label distinctions. The only substantive parameter documentation (custom_field, account_id) comes from the schema itself, not the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing account') and adds the disambiguating gloss '(company)', which separates it from lead/contact/deal updates at a glance. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_account or update_contact, so it stops short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_account, view_account, or search_accounts, and no mention of prerequisites like resolving an account_id first. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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