accounts_add

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it opens a browser for user consent, requests read-only access, and stores the token in Credential Manager. This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false because it writes a token; openWorldHint=true because it launches an external browser flow). No contradiction found. It could additionally mention idempotency or duplicate-profile handling, but the key side effects are 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core action, and adds only relevant detail about the consent flow and the profile parameter. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers the purpose, the side-effectful flow, and the parameter meaning. It is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. A short note about the interactive browser requirement or duplicate profiles could improve it, but nothing essential is missing for a basic call.

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?

The schema only defines 'profile' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that profile is a short alias and provides concrete examples ('pessoal', 'trabalho', 'cliente'). It adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could clarify uniqueness or reuse implications.

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 verb and resource: 'Adiciona uma conta Google' (adds a Google account). It also describes the mechanism (browser consent, token storage), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like accounts_list and accounts_remove.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a Google account needs to be added and a profile alias assigned. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as accounts_list or accounts_remove. Usage context is inferable but not stated.

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