m3_create_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important non-obvious trait: creation happens via an 'Async import queue'. However, it does not explain consequences such as delayed creation, how to check success, or what failures look like.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the async note adds meaningful behavioral context in minimal space.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain how to verify that the queued creation succeeded, what error or validation behavior to expect, or how the async import queue affects eventual consistency.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline score 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 ('Create'), a resource ('account'), and a context ('chart of accounts'). It clearly identifies the tool's function and is distinguishable from the many sibling m3_create_* tools that target different objects.

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 implies the obvious usage: use this when you need to create an account in the chart of accounts. However, it provides no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it mention when the async import queue behavior matters for choosing this tool.

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