pennylane_create_account

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

With annotations already covering the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds genuinely new behavior: prefix-driven auto-creation of fournisseur (401) or client (411) accounts. It does not mention permission requirements or reversal, but the key side effect is 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the notable side effect. No filler, though the prefix rule partly repeats the schema's number 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations plus 100% schema coverage carry most structured detail. The description supplies the non-obvious auto-creation behavior, leaving only minor gaps like permission prerequisites.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the exact 401/411 prefix rule. The description's prefix explanation duplicates the number parameter's own description, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Crée un nouveau compte dans le plan comptable'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling create tools (create_supplier/create_customer) it borders, but the accounting-account domain is distinct enough for an agent to route correctly.

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 only implied: the prefix rules hint that creating a 401/411 account will spawn a supplier/customer, but it never says when to prefer this tool over pennylane_create_supplier or pennylane_create_customer, nor what prerequisites exist. No explicit when/when-not guidance.

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