novada_proxy_account_create

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

Annotations indicate write but not destructive or idempotent. The description adds critical behavioral details: two-step confirm gate, preview without confirm, dry-run behavior, wire format, and auth fallback. This goes well beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (warning, behavior, best for, params, wire format, auth). It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with crucial warning and behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description should cover return values and errors. It explains the preview and confirm gate well, but does not mention typical success response or error scenarios. Still, the key behavioral context is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing all parameters in a list, clarifying product codes, that limit_flow is a string, and password storage. It provides additional context beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Create a proxy sub-account' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like novada_proxy_account_list by focusing on creation, and provides clear purpose.

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 says 'Best for: Provisioning a team-member or per-project sub-account' and explains the two-step confirm gate. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.

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