create_account

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

Given that annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., the description adds valuable behavioral detail: placeholder accounts are container-only, commodity defaults to the book's currency, commodity_namespace defaults to CURRENCY, and notes have a 4096-byte limit. These are beyond what the schema or annotations provide, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place. It leads with the core purpose, then follows a clear Arg list that maps directly to the schema. The formatting is consistent and scannable. Slightly long, but no redundancy or filler.

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 has 8 parameters and an output schema is present (so return format doesn't need description), the description covers all semantics needed to call the tool correctly. It explains the account type enum, parent ref formats, commodity namespace rules, placeholder behavior, and note limits. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool successfully.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: name, account_type with an explicit list of allowed values, parent with multiple accepted formats, placeholder behavior, commodity, commodity_namespace, and notes length. This is exactly what an agent needs to fill in valid arguments without relying on the schema's bare type definitions.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Create a new account in the chart of accounts.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like list_accounts, update_account, and delete_account. No ambiguity about the action.

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 clear context for when to use it (creating a new account) and includes useful guidance like 'Omit parent for top-level' and that commodity_namespace is 'Required with non-currency commodities.' It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling set, and the parameter guidance covers key usage decisions.

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