gmb_accounts_accounts_create

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral restrictions (which account types are not creatable, ownership limitations) that are not in the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or error behavior, so it falls short of rich behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized: one main sentence followed by four bullet-point constraints. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence carries unique information (constraints). No redundant fluff 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 complexity (nested body object, 5 parameters) but rich schema, the description provides essential context about what the tool does and key restrictions. It does not explain the response (no output schema), but for a create operation the response is typically the created object, and the schema covers the request shape. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by paraphrasing 'specific name and type' (accountName and type) and 'given parent' (primaryOwner), but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for every parameter. No new semantic meaning is introduced beyond what the schema already offers.

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 starts with the HTTP verb and resource ('POST v1/accounts') and clearly states 'Creates an account with the specified name and type under the given parent.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like admin creation (gmb_accounts_accounts_admins_create) or patching (gmb_accounts_accounts_patch) by focusing solely on account creation and including specific constraints.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (creating accounts) and explicitly lists exclusions (Personal/Organization accounts cannot be created, and various ownership restrictions). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the exclusions help disambiguate. This is above implied usage because it provides concrete boundaries on applicability.

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