ynab_create_account

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

The annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the dry_run parameter for preview, the balance parameter for opening balance (default 0), and the explicit list of account types. It does not contradict any 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?

The description is efficiently structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. The most critical information (purpose and required parameters) is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (2 required), an enum, and a described output schema with return fields, the description covers all necessary context: parameter details, defaults, return structure, and example invocations. It provides sufficient information for correct invocation without relying on external documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's role, defaults, and constraints. For example, it clarifies that budget_id is optional (default budget), balance is in dollars with default 0, dry_run previews without saving, and type includes all valid enum values. The examples further illustrate usage.

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 the tool's primary action: 'Create a new account in a YNAB budget.' This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like ynab_create_transaction or ynab_list_accounts, providing unambiguous purpose.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it explains what the tool does, it omits context about when creating an account is appropriate or when to prefer other tools (e.g., ynab_create_transaction). The examples only illustrate parameter usage, not decision-making criteria.

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