Изменить данные аккаунта

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: PATCH-like partial-update semantics and an explicit scope boundary (password and 2FA excluded). This is the kind of detail an agent needs to call the tool safely and correctly.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool changes, how to invoke partial updates, and what it cannot do. The core action is front-loaded and there is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a 5-parameter optional-field mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: scope of changes, partial-update behavior, and exclusions. Minor gaps remain — it does not describe the return value on success or error/validation behavior — but these are secondary for an update tool of this simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping all five parameters to their semantic roles (full_name, phone, birth_date, bio, timezone) and, more importantly, by stating that all fields are individually optional and only passed fields are changed — a semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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 states a specific verb ('Меняет'), a specific resource ('учётной записи'), and enumerates the exact fields affected (name, phone, birth date, bio, timezone). This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like account_get and from broader save tools like accounts_save.

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 gives explicit usage semantics: 'Передавайте только те поля, которые нужно изменить: остальные останутся как есть' instructs the agent to perform partial updates. It also provides a clear when-not condition, stating password and 2FA must be changed 'только из панели'. It does not, however, name sibling tools it should be preferred over.

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