update_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the exact failure mode and error code (loosening_refused), enumerates the blocking conditions, and warns that this mutates Officer control-plane config and is 'protected and disabled by default' — a critical privilege prerequisite. Title overwrite/clear semantics are also spelled out rather than left implicit.

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, front-loaded with the primary effect, then the guardrails; nothing is padding. The second sentence is long and dense with enumerated conditions, but each clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the rest: required privilege context, default-disabled state, exact refusal code, and all gating conditions. An agent has everything needed to decide whether the call can succeed before issuing it.

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% and the schema already says code-equals-account keeps it, empty title clears, and account is the current code, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond that by scoping the block/refusal rule to code changes specifically — implying a title-only change is not gated the same way — which the schema does not convey.

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 ('Change an account's code and title') and immediately clarifies the effect of each field: title replacement and clearing via empty string. The resource (account) is unambiguous against siblings like update_group and update_asset, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 refusal conditions effectively define when the tool will not work — blocked accounts, blocked groups, group-scoped Spot Funds P&L bounds, or an account carrying its own rate-limit, order-size or P&L barrier. That is strong 'when not to use' guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., set_account_currency) or explaining how to unblock an account.

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