Update an account

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the required API key scope (accounts:write), the HTTP verb/path, that no schema validation is performed and only listed fields are read, the exact status-code outcomes (200 vs. 202), and production-only constraints such as warmup requiring a proxy. These are exactly the operational facts annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, required scope, and endpoint, then behavioral detail in a tight sequence. Every sentence carries information; the only near-waste is the lead line repeating the title, which does no harm but adds nothing.

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 mutation tool with a large nested body and no output schema, the description covers auth, endpoint, response codes, and the tricky credential/proxy/warmup edge cases. Minor gaps remain: the semantics of warmupMode, warmupConfig, and maxDailyLimit are left entirely to the schema, and there is no note on returning the updated account object.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema does not: the interaction between forceRelogin, username and password, and the production constraint that a proxy cannot be removed (remove_account/proxy delete) but only replaced, and that warmup requires a proxy. It stops short of explaining maxActive/maxDailyLimit or totp behavior, but it clearly exceeds schema-level documentation.

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 opening line restates the title, but the body quickly establishes a specific verb+resource plus the endpoint (PATCH /accounts/{id}) and the two distinct behaviors the tool can perform (field update vs. credential replacement with queued re-login). It is distinguishable from siblings like update_proxy or relogin_account, though it never names an alternative to differentiate itself explicitly.

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 is implied rather than stated: the description explains the condition that triggers the 202 credential-replacement path ('If `forceRelogin` is true and `username` + `password` are given'), which is effectively a when-to-use rule, but there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over relogin_account, set_account_listening, or update_proxy.

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