create_manual_account

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

The description discloses only the obvious mutation intent ('Create') and does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. With only idempotentHint=false annotated, there is no mention of side effects, whether duplicates are allowed, required permissions, or what happens after creation. The description does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not meaningfully expand on them.

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 extremely concise, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The parenthetical about the former name is short and provides useful legacy context. Every element earns its place, and no verbose or redundant content is present.

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, combined with the fully documented schema, is minimally viable for an agent to understand the core operation and required parameters. However, it lacks broader context such as when to create a manual account versus other account types and what the tool returns, and the annotations are sparse. These gaps prevent it from being fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter including a clear description, so the description itself need not explain parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('a new manually-managed account'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. The phrase 'manually-managed' distinguishes it from synced or crypto account creation tools, and the parenthetical notes the former name without obscuring the current 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_manual_crypto, create_transactions, or synced account tools. It only mentions the former name 'create_asset', which is historical context, not usage direction. An agent must infer appropriate use entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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