account_add

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

The description describes an add/mutate operation that 'Writes the registry and runs Google consent in the browser', yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Adding an account and writing the registry modifies state, so the description directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation. Otherwise the disclosure of side effects and restart behavior would be strong, but the contradiction forces a 1.

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 action and the two usage modes, then adds side effects and prerequisites. Dense but every sentence carries information; no wasted filler, though the parenthetical about restart timing is a bit packed.

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 scope/side-effect-heavy account tool with no output schema, it discloses the mutation (registry write), the browser consent step, restart timing, and env prerequisites. What is missing is coherence with the annotations rather than raw content, and return-value detail is not strictly required.

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-vs-account synonym and optional bundles/admin). The description reiterates the key inputs ('alias + email', 'bundles/allBundles/admin') but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 distinguishes the two invocation modes (direct args vs interactive form), which separates it from siblings like account_list, account_reauth, and account_write_config. An agent can identify the tool's role 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?

Clearly explains the two paths: pass alias+email to skip the form, or pass nothing for elicitation-capable clients. It also names a prerequisite (GOOGLE_CLIENT_ID/SECRET, run the `setup` prompt). It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools (e.g. account_reauth) for related tasks, so not a 5.

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