Add accounts to a list

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, consistent with a mutation, and the description adds a behavioral prerequisite (follow requirement) that likely causes an error if violated. This goes beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose behavior for duplicates, idempotency, or partial failures. It enriches moderately but remains limited.

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 with no filler. The first sentence restates the title, while the second adds the valuable prerequisite/error insight. Efficient enough to earn a 4, though the opening sentence is mildly redundant with the title.

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 simple mutation with full parameter coverage, the description includes the key prerequisite an agent needs to avoid the common error. It does not address success/failure shapes or permission restrictions, but given no output schema and low complexity, this is an adequate level of completeness.

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 no parameter-specific detail beyond the follow prerequisite; it does not clarify formats for the 'account' selector or 'accts' values, but the schema already covers those.

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 clear verb and object: 'Add accounts to a list.' This unambiguously identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like remove_from_list, create_list, or list_accounts. The title and description align without ambiguity.

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 one useful usage constraint: you must already follow an account before adding it to a list. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied by the operation name rather than spelled out.

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