pfm_create_social_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical upsert behavior (updates existing account if same platform+user_id), which goes beyond a simple 'create'. It also implies a direct create without an intermediate OAuth step. However, it does not detail what happens to existing fields (merge vs replace) or mention any side effects, so it's not fully transparent but provides meaningful insight.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that immediately state the primary action and the key behavioral nuance. It front-loads the most important information ('Create a social account directly') and includes the upsert caveat without unnecessary filler. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, and core behavioral trait. It lacks explicit return-value information, but for a create/update tool the result is often self-evident. The combination of schema (100% parameter coverage) and description makes it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds valuable semantic context by highlighting that 'platform' and 'user_id' serve as the unique key for the upsert operation, which is not apparent from the schema alone. This extra meaning earns a score above the baseline of 3.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('social account'), and adds the crucial 'upsert by platform + user_id' behavior that distinguishes it from the sibling 'pfm_create_social_account_auth_url' (which handles OAuth flow initiation). It conveys exactly what the tool does in one concise sentence.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you have OAuth tokens from your own auth flow.' This clearly differentiates it from the auth-url flow tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state a when-not-to-use scenario. The context is clear enough for an agent to make the right choice.

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