sophos_update_account_access_token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (indicating mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds the constraint about required fields but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether the update is immediate or if there are side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds marginal value.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention the response format (e.g., updated token object or success status). For an update tool, this is a notable gap in completeness. Additionally, no prerequisites or post-conditions are described.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'label' and 'expires_at' but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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'), the resource ('account-level access token'), and the specific updatable fields ('label and/or expiry date'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the token type and operation, and no sibling appears to update access tokens.

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 explicitly requires 'At least one of label or expires_at must be provided', giving a clear usage constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from creation or other modifications, but the sibling list doesn't contain similar update token tools, so context is sufficient.

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