tokportal_update_account_commenting_profile

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) and the description adds significant behavioral context: preconditions (account ownership, active coverage), state-based restrictions (read-only for revealed/detached, banned, etc.). This goes beyond the structured hints.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: title, action, precondition, exclusions. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. Highly efficient.

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 (3 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers input conditions and restrictions well. It lacks explicit mention of return value or whether the update is partial vs full replacement, but overall is fairly 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 coverage is 100% so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds overall context ('commenting/autopilot profile fields') but does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource 'account commenting profile', and further specifies 'client-owned commenting/autopilot profile fields for a delivered account'. This distinguishes it from siblings that deal with analytics, bundles, or other account aspects.

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 implicit usage context (account must belong to API key owner, have active TokPortal Coverage, and certain states are read-only) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or name other tools for similar tasks. It lacks comparative guidance.

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