kas_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does explain what each action does (e.g., get_resources returns limits and usage, get_server_info returns PHP/MySQL/OS). It also discloses the optional pick/filter behavior. However, it omits important behavioral details like whether delete is irreversible, what happens on conflict, or any permission prerequisites, which is a notable gap for a management tool.

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 a brief opening, a bullet-style list of actions, and a concise explanation of optional parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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's multi-action complexity and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description covers the action list and high-level purpose but omits critical information about the 'params' object (required fields for create/update/delete). It also does not describe return values or error behavior, leaving users to guess at crucial usage details.

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 description adds meaning to the action enum by explaining each value and provides examples/use for pick and filter. However, 'params' is left entirely unexplained both in the schema and the description, and schema coverage is only 50%. The description does not fully compensate for this missing parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Manage' combined with a clear resource 'KAS accounts and settings' and enumerates specific actions (list, get_resources, get_settings, create, update, delete). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (kas_ssl, kas_dns, etc.) by focusing on account-level operations.

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 what the tool is for (account and settings management), and the action list implies when to use it for tasks like listing accounts or retrieving resource usage. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or point to alternatives (e.g., 'use kas_dns for DNS tasks'), so it misses the top tier.

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