accounts_patch_account_me

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds useful context that this is a partial (merge-style) update and states a regional precondition, but it does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to fields omitted from the body.

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 tight sentences plus the endpoint path; the partial-update scope and the two constraints are front-loaded. The trailing endpoint string is mildly redundant but harmless.

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 single-body, deeply nested PATCH with no output schema, the description supplies the key framing: partial semantics, eligible field groups, and a conditional field. Missing detail on withdrawMetadata clearing behavior and the newsletter flag is a residual gap rather than a blocker.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains the interface and legal field groups including the RU-only rule. However it omits two top-level body members entirely (withdrawMetadata with its null-clears-all semantics, and newsletterSubscribed), leaving meaningful parameters undiscussed.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Partially update current account") and enumerates the affected areas: interface language/theme, profile, and legal details, plus an explicit scope exclusion ("Currency is not changed here"). It is clear what the tool mutates, though it does not name a sibling alternative such as companies_update_company to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage constraints are implied through scoping clauses: legal fields apply only when the billing region is RU, and currency changes must go elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use versus another update tool, so an agent must infer routing from the field list alone.

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