add_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that the token is written to the macOS keychain (or chmod-600 file fallback) and is NEVER echoed back or logged. It also explains the effect of make_default and the optional app_secret behavior. It does not mention overwrite semantics or validation of the token, but the security-critical behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clean parameter block, and a short security note. No redundant or filler content; every line adds needed detail.

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 tool is a credential-storage operation with a meaningful side effect, and the description covers the purpose, all parameters, storage location, and secret-handling behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Minor gaps like duplicate-label handling or token validation are not addressed, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 0%, so this dimension depends entirely on the description. The description provides a line for each parameter: label with a short-key example, access_token as a long-lived API token, ig_user_id as numeric, app_secret as optional with appsecret_proof benefit, and make_default with its exact behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Store an Instagram Business/Creator account for use by every tool.' It clearly establishes this as the credentialing/setup tool, distinguishing it from siblings like publish_image or set_default_account by explaining its role as the account source for all other 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 usage: this is where an account is stored so every tool can use it, and make_default controls whether it becomes the fallback account. However, it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like set_default_account or remove_account, nor states when not to use this tool. Usage context is present but left mostly to inference.

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