subaccount

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, yet the description exposes actions like deleteApiKey and freeze, which are high-risk/destructive operations. This is a direct contradiction. The description also fails to mention side effects, confirmation requirements, or rate limits, so behavioral traits are not transparently disclosed.

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 only one line and compact, but it is a pipe-separated fragment beginning with the placeholder '[VERB]'. It is under-specified and lacks a well-formed, front-loaded summary; this is more an incomplete scaffold than a concise, polished description.

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 23-parameter, multi-action tool with no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits return shapes, pagination behavior, confirmation semantics, and broader operational context. Although the schema provides detailed parameter descriptions, the top-level description does not adequately orient an agent for a tool of this complexity.

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% with 23 parameters, and the action parameter provides especially rich semantics, mapping each action to its required fields. The top-level description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden effectively.

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 lists sub-account intents (create, list, freeze, assets, apiKeys, depositAddress, depositRecords) and makes the domain clear, but it lacks an explicit verb and starts with the placeholder '[VERB]'. It communicates that the tool handles sub-account operations but does not clearly differentiate from sibling 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as account_overview, transfer_funds, or deposit. The action list implies sub-account management, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or recommendations for when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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