tokportal_configure_bundle_account

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond by explaining that the account must have active TokPortal Coverage (or be grandfathered), that a due active period can renew automatically, and that if Coverage cannot renew, no task or media mutation starts. This adds significant behavioral context not captured by annotations.

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 written in a dense but efficient paragraph. Every sentence adds value: purpose, backward compatibility, alternative recommendation, conditions, and failure behavior. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated conditions), but overall it is concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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 complexity (nested body, multiple optional fields, Coverage dependency, pre/post-delivery states), the description covers the main behavioral aspects. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (no output schema) or error scenarios, which are minor gaps. Overall adequate for a configuration tool but could be more complete.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the biography max length is already in the schema). The description mentions some parameters (username, visible_name, etc.) but does not clarify usage beyond schema descriptions.

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 tool configures a bundle account profile, specifying the exact identity fields (username, visible name, biography, profile picture). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the recommended alternative endpoint for warming terms, implying separation from tokportal_configure_bundle_warming_terms.

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 PUT /bundles/{id}/warming-terms as an alternative for setting warming terms, and provides conditions for when the tool works (Coverage active or grandfathered, new accounts pre-delivery). It does not explicitly list exclusions or directly compare to other siblings, but the alternative guidance is strong.

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