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. It adds 'HIGH_WRITE (affects deliverability)', which signals a consequential side effect. However, it does not disclose whether changes are reversible, whether confirmation is required, or what the response looks like.

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 a single compact sentence with concrete examples and the important HIGH_WRITE warning front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter documentation, this description is incomplete. It leaves the 'confirm' parameter unexplained, says nothing about return values, and provides limited detail about side effects beyond deliverability.

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. It meaningfully clarifies the 'fields' parameter with examples and the possibility of a nested warmup object. However, it does not explain the semantics of 'email' or the 'confirm' boolean, which remain opaque.

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 ('Update account settings') and gives concrete examples like daily_limit, sending_gap, signature, and a nested warmup object. It is clear enough to distinguish from account retrieval or pause/resume operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 intended use is implied: update account settings by supplying fields. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what preconditions might apply.

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