Accounts: Create an Account

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: it specifies the required auth header (api-access-token) and documents that text/ID/number values pass through unchanged with Persian or Arabic-Indic digit handling. It still says nothing about duplicate-name behavior or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Well front-loaded: verb+resource first, then endpoint, auth, body fields, and edge-case notes in a compact block. Every line carries information, with only minor redundancy between the schema-documented extra_body and its restatement here.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, the auth requirement, the writable field, and value-encoding caveats. Given annotations carry the safety profile and the schema is fully documented, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 both parameters are already documented. The description restates "Body fields: name" and the extra_body merge mechanism rather than adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create an Account") and pins the exact endpoint (POST /platform/api/v1/accounts), which cleanly separates it from get_account, update_account, and delete_account. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the create-vs-read/update/delete distinction is unambiguous from the name and verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. It never clarifies how create_account differs from the adjacent creation tools like create_account_user or create_user, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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