Create account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write that may duplicate on repeat calls. The description adds only the bank-sync exclusion and says nothing about permissions or currency defaults beyond the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the supported types front-loaded and the exclusionary note second. Nothing wastes 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 a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 57% schema coverage, the description is thin. It never explains opening balance behavior, savings, credit_limit, or in_balance, so an agent must infer semantics from terse schema strings alone.

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 57%, with type, balance, currency, and in_balance already described in the schema. The description usefully glosses 'ccard' as 'card' and lists the valid types, but leaves title, savings, and credit_limit (including that credit_limit applies to card/e-money accounts) unaddressed.

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 (create) and resource (account) plus the supported account types, which maps directly to the enum. It also draws a scope boundary by excluding bank-synced accounts, though it does not name sibling tools like update_account or adjust_account_balance.

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 note that bank-synced accounts are created by ZenMoney itself is a genuine when-not-to-use signal. However, there is no guidance on choosing between create_account, update_account, and adjust_account_balance, or on prerequisites such as required currency context.

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