imap_update_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Without removing and re-adding it" usefully signals an in-place mutation that preserves unspecified settings and existing credentials, but the description never states permission/auth requirements, whether changes take effect on live connections, or what happens when a field is omitted (partial vs full replace).

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 sentences, no filler. The core purpose and the field list come first, and the conditional guidance about connection fields is placed second where it belongs.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus 100%-coverage schema covers the fields an agent must supply. It is slightly thin on mutation behavior (partial-update semantics, side effects on the active connection), but the schema and the in-place-update framing carry most of the load.

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 100% across all 17 parameters, so the schema already documents each field, including the viettel.vn hostname constraint and empty-string-to-clear semantics. The description's connection-field note largely restates what the schema says for host and smtpHost, adding little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing VMail account") and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. The phrase "without removing and re-adding it" implicitly distinguishes it from the imap_remove_account / imap_add_account pair in the sibling list.

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 second sentence gives real when-to-use guidance for the connection fields: host/port/TLS/SMTP are only needed if Viettel changes the VMail server, because new accounts get them automatically. It lacks an explicit statement of the inverse case (when to prefer remove+re-add, or how this compares to imap_test_account), so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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