Update Account Advanced Config

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

The annotation 'destructiveHint: true' is supported by the description which details that only passed keys change, identity stays same, and browser must be closed. It adds value beyond the annotation by explaining the non-destructive nature of the update and the requirement to relaunch the browser. There is no contradiction.

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 well-structured: a brief introduction, behavioral notes, a prerequisite, and a clear args list. Every sentence adds value, but the args section could be made slightly more concise by grouping similar parameters. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of 15 parameters.

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?

Given the high parameter count and no schema descriptions, the description covers the operation, prerequisites, outcomes (returns new config), and key constraints (fingerprint not re-rolled, browser must be closed). It references an existing output schema and provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by defining each parameter, referencing gv_create_account for common meanings, and providing examples for complex ones like device_profile, device_config, reset_keys, and reset_device_keys. It clarifies that only passed parameters change and explains how multiple parameters interact.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'advanced fingerprint config of an existing account'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like gv_create_account and gv_delete_account by specifying that only injection/behavioral params change, not the identity. The behavior 'Only the keys you pass are changed' adds precision.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool (to update advanced config) and provides a critical prerequisite: 'The browser must be CLOSED when this is called; relaunch with gv_open_account to apply the new settings.' It also implies when not to use it (identity stays same, so no for re-rolling fingerprints). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different operations, though the sibling list implies alternatives.

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