update_sub_account

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

The description adds the key behavioral detail 'Only provided fields are updated,' indicating a partial-update semantics. This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation, which already signals potential destructive effects. The description is consistent with the annotation, and the added partial-update behavior is valuable for correct invocation.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance and partial-update note follow directly. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage, and behavior.

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 simple update tool with full schema descriptions and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it behaves (partial update). It does not specify error handling or edge cases (e.g., setting permissions to empty array), but such details are not essential for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description references the main fields ('permissions, template access, or active status') and explains 'grant/revoke access' and 'deactivate,' which adds some interpretive value. However, this is mostly a restatement of schema content, so the incremental value over the schema is modest.

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 it updates a sub-account's permissions, template access, or active status. It names the specific resource (sub-account) and the updatable aspects, distinguishing it from siblings like create_sub_account, delete_sub_account, and list_sub_accounts. The verb 'update' is explicit and unambiguous.

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 concrete usage context: 'Use this to grant/revoke access or deactivate a team member.' This tells the agent when to employ the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions like 'For creating a new sub-account, use create_sub_account.' The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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