tokportal_configure_bundle_account

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals side effects: automatic renewal of due active periods, and the fact that no task or media mutation starts if Coverage cannot renew. It also clarifies that a new account remains configurable before delivery. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary supplementary context. Each sentence contributes distinct information (backward compatibility, conditions, pre-delivery behavior). It could be slightly tighter, but it's efficient overall.

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 nested) and no output schema, the description covers the action and conditions well but omits any indication of the return value or confirmation behavior. The complexity is moderate, so this gap reduces completeness. The description is complete enough for choosing the tool but not fully for invoking without additional knowledge.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the advanced_warming_terms parameter's purpose as backward-compatible and directing users to the preferred endpoint. This clarifies when to use this parameter vs. an alternative, enhancing semantic understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Configure' and the resource 'bundle account profile', listing specific fields (username, visible name, biography, profile picture). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like tokportal_configure_bundle_warming_terms and tokportal_configure_bundle_video.

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 recommends the alternative endpoint PUT /bundles/{id}/warming-terms for advanced_warming_terms, explaining why it is preferred (available at any account status). It also outlines the conditions under which the tool operates (active TokPortal Coverage or grandfathered status, auto-renewal behavior). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool.

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