create_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses currency inheritance chain, the no-tier/no-P&L rule, the specific refusal error (loosening_refused) and its rationale, and that the operation mutates Officer control-plane config and is protected/disabled by default. It stops short of stating required permissions or reversibility, so 4 not 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent sentence adds behavioral information (inheritance, refusal, mutation/protection). The prose is dense and slightly run-on but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the mutation/refusal/default-disabled semantics thoroughly. The main remaining gap is authorization requirements for a protected, disabled-by-default control-plane mutation.

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 restates the currency inheritance semantics already present in the schema and adds little new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create an account') and enumerates the inputs (code, optional title, optional currency), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_group or update_account, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the mention of inheritance/refusal behavior, but the description never states when to prefer this over update_account or create_group, nor any preconditions for calling it. Guidance is inferable but not explicit.

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