open_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'adds' directives to the book, implying mutation, but does not explain validation behavior, handling of duplicate accounts, idempotency, or failure modes. The example helps but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the example earns its place by illustrating exact input format.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description is minimally viable: it gives the purpose and an example. But it lacks usage comparisons with add_directives and fails to describe any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent to guess about validation and edge cases.

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 the description must compensate for the undocumented beancount_text parameter. The example '2026-01-01 open Assets:Checking USD' gives a concrete format, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether the string may contain multiple directives or how comments/whitespace are handled.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it adds account open, close, or commodity directives to the book. The example further clarifies the exact directive format. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_directives, but the scope is clear enough.

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?

Usage is implied by the directive types listed: open, close, and commodity. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of add_directives or add_transactions, and no exclusions are stated.

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