anon_post_accounts

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-idempotent, destructive, open-world write, and the description usefully adds the required accounts:manage permission plus a key storage behavior — passwordCipher is stored verbatim while cipherKeySource=server encrypts before persisting. That storage-permission detail is real added value beyond the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the permission requirement and then mode/password rules; the closing lines about the POST path and auto-derived project are slightly redundant but still useful. Generally dense and well-ordered.

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 adequately covers creation semantics, permissions, project scoping, and password handling for a nested-object body. It does not address duplicate-account or error behavior, a minor gap for a create tool.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it explains the XOR choice between passwordCipher (default) and cipherKeySource=server + password, and that otp/contact modes omit password fields entirely. This clarifies relationships the flat schema does not.

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+resource (新增平台账号 = create a platform account), making it clearly the create counterpart to the anon_get/anon_patch/anon_delete_accounts siblings. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it sits just below the top tier.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use context for the three mode values, specifying that password fields are only supplied for mode=full and how browser vs server encryption selects which field to send. It stops short of naming when NOT to use this tool versus the patch/delete siblings.

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