service_update_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a mutation ('Update') and mentions permission requirements, but it does not disclose potential side effects, whether changes are reversible, or what response the agent should expect. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key precondition without any filler. Every word adds value.

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 is a simple update operation with a well-covered schema, but the description lacks behavioral details (e.g., return value, partial update semantics, idempotency). While the simplicity lowers the bar, the missing transparency for a mutation tool leaves clear gaps.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, describing all three parameters (account_id, username, password) with clear meanings. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('service account'), and clearly identifies the fields affected ('username or password'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like service_update_host and service_update_port by specifying the target resource and fields.

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 a clear precondition for use ('Requires blue team edit permissions'), which helps the agent determine when invocation is permitted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like admin_update_password or describe scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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