update_expenses_account

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

With no annotations, the description should cover behavioral aspects like idempotency, error handling, or side effects. It only states the basic action, omitting details such as whether partial updates are allowed, what happens if the account doesn't exist, or if permissions are required.

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, clear sentence without fluff. It is appropriately sized, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 update tool, the description is minimally adequate given that the schema documents all parameters. However, it lacks context on return values or error states, which is reasonable without an output schema but still leaves gaps.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not improved.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('expenses account'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_expenses_account or delete_expenses_account, which is expected from the name but not explicitly clarified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create for new accounts, list to find accounts). There are no prerequisites or context for typical use cases.

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