create_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that placeholder is a 'container-only account' and that notes show in GnuCash's Notes field, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether creating an account is reversible, whether it affects balances, what happens on duplicate names, or whether permissions are required. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 well-structured with an Args section and bullet-list style parameter documentation. It's denser than ideal because it documents 8 parameters, but every sentence adds value—examples like 'AI Subscriptions', 'USD', 'VTSAX', and 'NASDAQ' make it immediately usable. No fluff or redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It documents all parameters with types, defaults, and cross-constraints. Since an output schema exists, not describing return values is acceptable. The main gaps are behavioral aspects (duplicate handling, side effects) rather than parameter or semantic coverage.

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 0%, so the description MUST fully compensate. It does an excellent job here: every parameter is documented with its meaning, acceptable values (account_type enum list, commodity_namespace choices), defaults, and interdependencies (e.g., commodity_namespace required with non-currency commodities). The parent ref formats (full path, %short GUID, 32-char GUID) are also explained.

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 clearly states the purpose: create a new account in the chart of accounts. The verb (create), resource (account), and scope (chart of accounts) are all explicit, and the extensive parameter documentation makes it clear what this tool does versus sibling tools like update_account or move_account.

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 field-by-field guidance on what each parameter means and when to include them (e.g., commodity_namespace required with non-currency commodities, omit parent for top-level). It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool vs alternatives like create_commodity, but the domain distinction is fairly clear from the sibling names and account-specific context.

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