fizzy_account

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavior: it describes each action's return format and side effects (setting the default). It reveals that get returns null if unset and that account_slug is only needed for set. Missing details like error handling for invalid slugs prevent a 5.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (When to use, Arguments, Returns, Related). While slightly verbose, every sentence adds useful information. It could be more terse, but the clarity compensates.

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?

The description covers usage, behavior for all three actions, return formats, and related tools. It is comprehensive for a simple account management tool. Minor omission: no mention of error behavior for invalid slugs, but overall sufficient.

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?

The schema already covers the enum for action and provides descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the conditional requirement of account_slug (required for set) and giving an example slug, going beyond the schema's 'required': ['action'] alone.

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 'Get, set, or list accounts for API calls' and explains it manages the session default. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fizzy_boards or fizzy_task by focusing solely on account context.

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 'When to use' and 'Don't use' sections provide explicit guidance for when to use this tool (list, set, check) and when to avoid it (multi-account operations, suggesting explicit account_slug instead). It also references auto-resolution via env var, giving clear context for alternatives.

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