Accounts Create Manual Account

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

The description says 'This may create or update Monarch data,' which warns about side effects and aligns with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. However, it does not add deeper behavioral context such as whether existing accounts can be overwritten, ownership requirements, or reversibility. No contradiction 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. The second sentence is a short side-effect note, and there is no wasted phrasing. It is appropriately compact, though it achieves brevity at the cost of useful detail.

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?

With 8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and limited schema documentation, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain valid account types/subtypes, what fields are relevant, what response shapes to expect, or how this relates to account update operations.

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 only 25%, with descriptions present only for fields and output_mode. Six parameters, including the required name, type, and subtype, lack meaningful descriptions in the schema, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. The agent has no guidance on valid type/subtype values, balance semantics, or owner_user_id formatting.

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 states the core action 'Create manual account' with a specific verb and resource, matching the tool name. It is distinguishable from accounts_update_account and investments_create_manual_holding, though it does not explain what makes an account 'manual' or how manual account creation differs from other creation flows.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention accounts_update_account, imports, or investments_create_manual_holding, so an agent must infer usage only from the tool name and title.

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