update_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: cross-polarity changes to account_type are blocked (e.g., ASSET to LIABILITY), which is useful safety context. It also discloses the notes max 4096 bytes limit and shared Notes field. However, it doesn't describe what happens to unspecified fields (are they left unchanged?), reversibility, permissions, or error behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, it provides meaningful but incomplete behavioral context.

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 structured as a clear first line plus an Args list, making each parameter's meaning scannable. Every sentence earns its place — no fluff. It's moderately sized for a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage. The only slight inefficiency is repeating some information that the schema title fields already imply, but this is minor given the 0% coverage.

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 complex 6-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations. The description compensates well: it documents every parameter's semantics, the important polarity constraint, and the notes format. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The main gap is lack of guidance on partial updates (whether unspecified fields are preserved) and permissions, but overall it's reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 fully compensates. It explains each parameter in detail: name accepts three formats (full path, %short GUID, or 32-char GUID), new_name is leaf-only, placeholder means container-only, account_type has polarity constraints with concrete examples, and notes has a 4096-byte limit with clear clearing semantics (pass "" to clear). This substantially exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 updates an existing account's properties, with a specific verb (Update) and resource (account). It distinguishes from siblings like create_account, delete_account, and move_account. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_account/delete_account in prose, though the name itself conveys the update intent clearly.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_account, move_account, or delete_account. It implies usage by naming the specific properties it updates, but provides no exclusions or context for when another sibling would be more appropriate. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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