create_accounting_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. It does disclose the key trait that this is a write and that `data` is sent verbatim as the raw request body, which tells the agent it must assemble a complete payload itself. However, it says nothing about required permissions, duplicate-name handling, or what a successful call returns.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the 'WRITE:' mutation marker, with no filler. The only structural weakness is outsourcing the substantive payload detail to an off-tool documentation link.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested `data` object whose fields are undefined in the schema. The description's answer to that gap is a URL, which an agent may not be able to fetch, leaving it unable to construct a valid payload from the definition 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful detail that the object is passed through verbatim with no transformation, but the nested payload's actual fields are documented nowhere in the schema and are deferred entirely to an external URL.

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: creates an accounting account in the Holded chart of accounts, plus the API version. It is clear what it does, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as create_expenses_account, create_ledger_entry, or the read-side list_accounting_accounts / get_chart_of_accounts.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The 'WRITE:' prefix implies mutation, but an agent choosing among several create_* accounting-adjacent siblings gets no routing help.

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