update_route_whitelist_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait – that the full record must be sent rather than a partial patch – and that disabling stops the account being used. It omits permissions required, whether the change is reversible, and what happens to in-flight deposits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the one operational instruction that matters (send the full record). No filler.

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 six-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the disable semantics, and the full-record requirement, with the schema filling in field-level detail. It stops short of stating side effects or error behavior, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 six parameters including the enabled flag's effect. The description echoes three of them (BSB, account number, status) but adds no syntax, format, or ID-provenance detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (change/disable) and resource (whitelisted source account on an AUD payment route), which clearly distinguishes it from add_route_whitelist_account and list_route_whitelist by implication. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Change or disable a whitelisted source account" implies this operates on an entry that already exists, and "Send the full record" signals a full-replace call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that sourceAccountId comes from list_route_whitelist), and no exclusion against the add/create sibling.

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