create_account

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the mutation nature via '[WRITE ACTION]' and states that the full created record is returned. It does not mention side effects such as whether creating an account affects the active account, permission requirements, or any limits, so disclosure is partial.

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 write-action marker and core purpose are front-loaded, and the example questions add practical value without bloating the text. The examples are somewhat verbose and partly restate the purpose, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

For a six-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the fields it consumes, and that it returns the full created record. The remaining gap is behavioral detail (permissions, effect on the active account), which is not covered anywhere.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including enum values, defaults, and constraints. The description restates a few fields (balance, broker, market) but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new trading account in TradeZylo') plus the account varieties it covers (funded challenge, personal live broker, demo), and even names the return value. Against siblings like get_accounts or switch_account, an agent can immediately tell this is the creation tool.

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 three example questions show concrete intended uses, which implies when to reach for this tool. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative named (e.g., update_limits or switch_account for modifying an existing account), so routing is left largely to inference.

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