account_add

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it writes the registry, launches Google consent in the browser, needs no file edit or restart, but services newly enabled only register at the next restart. The destructiveHint=true/write profile is consistent and further explained by 'writes the registry'.

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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps everything in a tight, dense paragraph; each clause (modes, side effects, restart caveat, credential prerequisite) carries information. Parenthetical asides add minor length but not waste.

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 an OAuth-flow tool with no output schema, it covers the necessary operational context: two invocation modes, side effects, restart timing, and credential prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, including the alias/account aliasing. The description adds only the alias+email pairing rule and the bundles/allBundles/admin options, which is marginal over structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Add a new Google account') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like account_list and account_reauth by describing the add/registry-write behavior. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit invocation conditions: pass alias+email to add directly, or pass nothing for the interactive form on elicitation-capable clients, plus the GOOGLE_CLIENT_ID/SECRET prerequisite ('run the `setup` prompt first'). It does not explicitly contrast against account_reauth, so it falls just short of a 5.

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