create_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is root-signed, that it uses different CORE program IDs per network, and that a missing keypair returns need_human_signature/need_human_setup along with an unsigned transaction. It also gives the directive 'Never ask for a seed or key.' This goes beyond a bare 'create' and covers failure modes, though it does not mention success response or idempotency.

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 composed of short, impactful sentences each adding value: the core action, signing context, network variation, failure handling, and a safety directive. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids redundant filler. Efficient and well-structured.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of network-specific behavior and conditional signing, the description covers the important operational detail: root-signed, network CORE IDs, missing-keypair fallback, and the 'no seed' warning. It does not describe the success response format or handle the case where the account already exists, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 both parameters (root and dry_run) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the instruction 'Never ask for a seed or key,' which is a behavioral note rather than parameter-specific semantics. It does not provide additional format or usage details for the parameters beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create the GrokAccount PDA for the human root.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and even adds network-specific context. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool to differentiate from, though the action is distinct enough from the grant/payment/deploy siblings.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (creating the human root's GrokAccount) and explains environment-specific behavior (localnet vs devnet). It mentions the edge case of a missing keypair and instructs the agent to never ask for a seed or key, which is a usage directive. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references, but the context is clear.

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