b2_reserve_trial_create_account

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds crucial context: the operation is billable, irreversible, gated by the destructive-operation confirmation, has no provider-side recovery path in file-sink mode, and the minted key is shown only once. It also explains that idempotencyKey will not prevent duplicate accounts, which directly elaborates on the idempotentHint=false annotation.

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 focused sentences, each carrying essential operational or routing information. Critical caveats are front-loaded: purpose, return value, prerequisites, irreversibility, secret-sink constraint, retry behavior, and alternative tool. No filler or repetition.

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 complex, destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, retry semantics, secret handling, and the alternative pathway. It also names the return value (durable application key). Combined with 100% schema parameter coverage, an agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly and avoid dangerous duplicate provisioning.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the idempotencyKey caveat already documented in the schema, but it does not add new meaning to email, term, storage, region, or confirm beyond what the property descriptions already provide.

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 ('Reserve and create') plus the exact resource ('B2 Reserve trial account through the Partner API') and the key output (a durable application key). The final sentence also distinguishes it from b2_create_group_member, so an agent can tell this tool apart from its closest sibling.

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 states when to use this tool (standalone trial provisioning) and names the alternative (b2_create_group_member) for adding an account to an existing Partner group. It also gives prerequisites (Partner-entitled master key), operational constraints (inline secret-sink mode only), and retry guidance (verify before retrying), leaving little to inference.

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