Создать дочерний аккаунт без права оплаты

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits: credentials are shown only once (must be saved), two calls create two accounts (non-idempotent), the account cannot self-fund (money from parent), and renaming/deleting is not allowed. These go beyond the annotations and provide essential operational knowledge.

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 well-structured, front-loading the main action and then explaining implications. It is slightly verbose but every sentence carries relevant information about constraints, credentials, and behavior, so it remains focused and readable.

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 explains the return values (accountID, clientKey, clientSecret) and their one-time nature, which is crucial since no output schema is provided. It also covers operational constraints, but does not mention error handling or failure scenarios, which is a minor omission for a creation tool.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (shortName and isSelfAdvertisingEnabled), and the description does not add further clarity. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description offers no additional 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 action (creates a child account), the specific resource (child account without payment permission), and the key output (credentials). It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'without payment permission' and the constraint that renaming/deleting is not allowed, which sets it apart from other account-related tools.

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 implies when to use the tool (when creating a child account that cannot pay) and mentions related tools like transfer_funds for adding money. However, it does not explicitly compare with create_sandbox_account or other potential alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over similar creation tools.

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