Create account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the API key is returned only once and must be stored, and email cannot be used for access or recovery. That directly shapes post-call handling. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive or whether calling it repeatedly creates junk accounts, which is consistent with, but not explanatory of, idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, both load-bearing: the first covers the action and the one-time key return, the second covers storage and the email caveat. Nothing is padded and the most consequential fact leads.

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 mutating two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does well on the return value (API key, once). It leaves gaps on what 'name' means, whether a duplicate signup creates an extra account, and what the destructiveHint implies, so an agent could still call it incorrectly or not know how to handle the result.

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 carry parameter meaning. It addresses 'email' only indirectly (not an access or recovery credential), leaving its actual role unspecified, and says nothing about 'name' despite it being the sole required field.

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 states a specific action and outcome: an anonymous signup that returns a new account API key exactly once. That clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_account or list_connections. It never names a sibling or explicitly says 'create', but the effect is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., use get_account if you already have credentials). The word 'Anonymous' implies the no-credentials case, but that inference is left to the agent.

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