accounts_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the auth prerequisite, the side effect that the new account becomes active, the downstream impact on projects_create/projects_list, and the return shape (id and name). It stops short of error/failure behavior (duplicate name or email, permission errors), which is the remaining gap for a mutating 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?

Five short sentences, each carrying unique information: purpose, auth prerequisite, side effect, return value, and alternative. The most decision-relevant constraints (login, already-have-an-account) are front-loaded rather than buried.

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 3-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, side effects, return values, and the alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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 100%, so name, email, and currency are already fully documented including the non-changeable currency constraint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new billing account (organization)') plus what the resource holds ('projects and payment details'). This clearly separates it from siblings like accounts_list and accounts_use without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Explicitly names prerequisites ('Requires a prior platform login (use the login tool first)') and an alternative workflow ('Most users need only one account — call accounts_list first to check whether a suitable one already exists'). Both the when-to-use and the anti-pattern are given.

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