write.account.create

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms it builds an unsigned transaction (not executed), supporting idempotence. It also explains that creditor is ignored for V4 spot accounts. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences front-loaded with purpose, then behavior details, then return value. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient and clear.

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 tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects and version differences. It does not reiterate every parameter detail, but schema already covers those. The description is sufficient for an agent to choose and use the tool correctly.

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 the description adds significant context: it explains the meaning of account_version values and the role of creditor. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, e.g., 'V3 margin account' vs 'V4 spot account'.

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 builds an unsigned transaction to create an Arcadia account via the Factory contract. It specifies the verb 'build' and the resource, and distinguishes between V3 margin and V4 spot accounts. The mention of deterministic address via CREATE2 adds clarity.

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 guidance on using account_version and explains when creditor is relevant vs ignored. It implies this tool is a prerequisite for other write.account operations but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but is otherwise clear.

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