ncloud_create_sub_account

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

Annotations include only destructiveHint:false, and the description adds the valuable dry-run behavior, which is a safety feature not covered by annotations. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the ability to preview without side effects. However, it does not mention potential requirements like permissions, the fact that creating an access key is tied to canAPIGatewayAccess, or the return payload, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a practical tip. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite minimal. It covers the core purpose and a key usage flag, but does not explain what the response contains, any prerequisites, or common failure modes. The high schema coverage helps, but the description leaves the agent to infer broader context for a complex create operation.

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 all parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description mainly restates the dryRun parameter's purpose (preview without creating), which is already in the schema. It does not add meaningful new semantics for other parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Create a new sub account (IAM user)' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_group or delete_sub_account. The parenthetical IAM user further clarifies the resource type, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 a specific usage tip ('Use dryRun=true to preview without creating') but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_group or attach_policy. The intended use is implied by the tool name, but without explicit guidance on choosing between related IAM tools, the usage context is only partially clear.

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