updateMyAccount

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint: false, meaning it is a write operation. The description aligns with this by saying 'update', but it adds no further behavioral context—such as whether changes are immediately visible, if certain fields are protected, or if admin privileges are required. With no extra disclosure and no contradictions, the description barely covers the behavioral baseline.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the essential action. However, its brevity edges toward under-specification, which costs it a 5, but it is still appropriately sized for the basic purpose.

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?

Given the highly nested schema with many update options and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It gives no indication of what can be updated, how to structure the request, or any prerequisites. An agent would need to infer everything from the schema, which is complex and not self-explanatory. This is a significant gap.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters, while the schema has a complex bodyParams object with many nested fields (pref, user, etc.). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining what parameters exist or what they control, but it fails to do so. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which the description does not help map to real-world usage.

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 'Update my account' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (my account), which is sufficient for a basic understanding. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'getMyAccount' or 'updateUser' by implying the current user's account, but it lacks specificity about what fields are modifiable.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'updateUser' (for other users) or 'getMyAccount' (for reading). It does not mention context like authentication requirements or that it modifies only the current user's account, leaving the agent to infer this from the tool name.

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