tokportal_update_account_commenting_profile

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: confirms mutation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false), defines scope (client-owned, delivered), and lists restricted account statuses. The idempotency_key parameter is noted in the schema, but the description does not elaborate on retry behavior or idempotency. Overall, it provides meaningful additional context without contradicting 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 three sentences long, each adding distinct value: purpose, scope, and usage conditions. It is front-loaded with the core action, then details the constraints. No redundant or filler content. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers preconditions and restrictions well, but it does not describe the tool's output or return format. Since there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the response contains (e.g., updated profile, success message). It also does not explain the effect of the idempotency_key. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this gap reduces completeness.

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%; all parameters have basic descriptions. However, the tool description does not enrich the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. The body's dimensions (goal, niche, persona, etc.) are implied but not explained. Baseline score is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description adds minimal extra semantic value.

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 updates an account commenting profile, specifying it is for client-owned commenting/autopilot profile fields on a delivered account. It includes ownership and coverage prerequisites, and lists read-only account states. This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among sibling tools, none of which perform this specific update.

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 explicit conditions for use: the account must belong to the API key owner and have active TokPortal Coverage (or be permanently grandfathered). It also lists account states (revealed, detached, banned, paused, lapsed, unrecoverable) where accounts are read-only, guiding when not to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or specify when to choose this over other account update tools, though no direct sibling exists.

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