set_account_labelAssign a recognizable label to any bank account, such as 'Joint expenses' or 'Mortgage', so you can use the label instead of its UID across all other tools.
Give an account a name you will recognise, e.g. 'Joint expenses' or 'Mortgage'. Labels can be used instead of uids in every other tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | ||
| account | Yes | Account uid, or current label/name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the core effect and that labels are usable across tools, but does not mention whether an existing label is overwritten, whether labels must be unique, or any side effects. Acceptable for a simple setter, but some transparency is missing.
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?
Two short sentences carry purpose, examples, and cross-tool relevance. No filler or redundancy; the most important information is front-loaded.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter interpretation, and why labeling is useful. It omits edge-case behavior like overwriting or label removal, but these are not critical to invoking 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 coverage is 50%: 'account' is documented in the schema, but 'label' is not. The description compensates by explaining what a label is, giving examples, and noting that labels can replace uids everywhere. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 clear action ('Give an account a name') on a specific resource (account) and provides concrete examples. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling list/get/consent tools, none of which involve labeling.
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 when to use the tool: to assign a recognizable name so labels can replace uids in other tools. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but since no sibling tool performs labeling, this is clear and sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.