Update sub-account

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing partial-update semantics, a KYC-related side effect that can pause calls, and the environment-variable plus confirm gate. Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, idempotent, and open-world, and the description adds the practical behavioral constraints an agent needs before invoking it.

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 carrying distinct operational information: scope, partial update, KYC side effect, and gating. The core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 a 10-parameter update tool with a nested permissions object, an enum, and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral caveats. It could be slightly richer on nested permissions replacement semantics, but the safety-relevant context is present.

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 80% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful update semantics by specifying that only supplied fields change. It also links kyc_mode customer_use to the email parameter, adding cross-parameter meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource (change a sub-account) and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what class of operation this is. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from create_sub_account or delete_sub_account, but the update semantics are clear.

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?

Gives clear contextual guidance: only passed fields change, customer_use requires an email and may pause calls, and the operation is gated by VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING and confirm. It does not name explicit alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the operational preconditions are well stated.

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