nex_account_modify

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: password and 2FA secret are write-only and never returned, which is important for an agent to know. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and still does not explain return values, error behavior, whether changes are reversible, or what happens when the account does not exist.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the write-only warning earns its place as essential behavioral information.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is quite sparse. It omits return value expectations, failure modes, and explanations for several parameters, leaving an agent with significant gaps when deciding how to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is only 44%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters such as teamId, username, platformUrl, platformName, or remark. It repeats the write-only nature of password and key2fa already present in the schema, but adds no new meaning for the remaining parameters beyond the general instruction to pass only changed fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('one platform account'), and a scope ('workspace catalog'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nex_account_create, nex_account_delete, and nex_account_list. The phrase 'Pass only the fields that must change' further clarifies the update semantics.

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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing account rather than creating or deleting one, and it gives invocation guidance ('Pass only the fields that must change'). However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as nex_account_create or nex_account_delete, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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