create_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it creates an account, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose any side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is reversible. It also doesn't mention what happens if an account with the same name exists, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a critical constraint. It's front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the constraint into a clearer format, but it's still well within acceptable conciseness.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It explains the account_type constraint but doesn't describe what the tool returns, any side effects, or error conditions. For a creation tool with two parameters, it's minimally adequate but lacks completeness in terms of behavioral and return-value context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description adds meaning to 'account_type' by listing valid values, which is helpful. However, it doesn't add any semantics for the 'name' parameter beyond what the schema provides (a string). The description partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but doesn't fully cover both parameters.

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: 'Create a new account in the ledger.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('account in the ledger'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'record_transaction' and 'get_balance'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools that might also create entities, but given the sibling list, it's clear enough.

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 a clear constraint on the 'account_type' parameter, which is a usage guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The sibling tools are different enough that the purpose is clear, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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