provision_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 well: it discloses idempotency, that an existing key from RUNHOOKS_API_KEY or prior provision is returned rather than duplicated, and that a key is persisted locally. It does not describe the response shape or whether the local write can fail, which keeps it from a 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and side effect, followed by the idempotency semantics and the misuse warning. No 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?

For a zero-required-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important behaviors: idempotency, what is returned when a key exists, and local key persistence. Only the exact return payload is unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'name' parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning about the name parameter, which is acceptable given full schema documentation.

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 (create an anonymous Runhooks account) plus a concrete side effect (save its API key locally). It does not explicitly name a sibling tool it is not, but the 'anonymous, no email required' framing is specific enough to separate it from account-related siblings like whoami and rotate_key.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Call this at most once — never to recover from an auth error.' That negative guidance is exactly the routing information an agent needs to avoid misusing it after a 401.

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