tokportal_update_account_commenting_profile

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false), not destructive (destructiveHint: false), and not idempotent (idempotentHint: false). The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the read-only states, but it does not explain the consequences of an update (e.g., whether changes immediately affect live behavior). It also does not clarify authentication requirements beyond 'API key owner'.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second and third sentences add necessary usage constraints. It earns points for being efficient, though one could argue the read-only status list could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (one being a complex nested object), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers inputs and preconditions but lacks information about the return value or confirmation of success. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at what the response looks like (e.g., returns the updated profile), but it does not.

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%, and the schema descriptions for parameters are already quite detailed (e.g., 'Saved account ID.', 'JSON request body.', 'Optional Idempotency-Key header for safe retries.'). The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics, but given the high schema coverage, this is acceptable. The description compensates by explaining the overall purpose and constraints, which helps the agent understand what fields in the body are relevant.

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 verb 'Update' and the specific resource 'account commenting profile'. It further details what fields are updated ('client-owned commenting/autopilot profile fields'), which distinguishes it from any sibling tool that might update different aspects of an account.

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 clear context for when to use the tool by specifying preconditions: the account must belong to the API key owner and have active TokPortal Coverage (unless permanently grandfathered). It also lists account states that are read-only ('Revealed/detached, banned, paused, lapsed and unrecoverable'), effectively telling the agent when NOT to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for those read-only states.

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