setup_account

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, implying account modification. The description doesn't contradict annotations. It adds transparency by explaining that the tool sends a verification code, requires a two-step process, and sets a permanent handle. Could be slightly improved by noting that handle becomes permanent and cannot be changed via this tool.

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 concise with 3 sentences, but could be more succinct. The step-by-step list is clear, but the last sentence could be merged with the step description. No wasted words, but could be tightened.

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 moderate complexity (2-step process, 3 params), the description covers the essential workflow and outcomes. There's no output schema, but the description explains what happens (login enabled, handle set). Could be more complete by noting that handle must be unique, but the schema constraint (3-30 chars, lowercase) covers some of that.

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% and each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying the role of 'code' (omit to request a code) and the handle purpose, but doesn't add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: associating an email and handle with an account. It outlines a two-step process (request code, then verify) and explains the result (login enabled, permanent @handle set). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_project or deploy which have different purposes.

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 step-by-step usage instructions: first call with just email to get a verification code, then call with email+code+handle to complete setup. It also mentions the outcome (login to console, sets permanent handle), guiding the AI on when to use this tool. No exclusions are needed as it's a one-time setup process.

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