create_sub_account

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, which lowers the burden on the description. The description adds context about own login credentials and limited access, but does not explain the destructive implications (e.g., potential removal of existing permissions or credential revocations). No contradiction with annotations, but it could elaborate on the side effects of creation.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and purpose are front-loaded, and the secondary sentence clarifies the outcome (credentials). Every word contributes to comprehension.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the access-control model, and the creation of credentials. It does not mention response behavior, but that is not required given no output schema. Required fields are handled by the schema. Minor gap: no mention of any prerequisites or post-creation implications, but overall adequate.

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%, so all five parameters are documented. The description adds meaning by grouping them: 'specific permissions and template access' maps to permissions and templateIds, while 'own login credentials' maps to email, password, and displayName. This enhances understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Create a new sub-account') and precisely states its function: granting team members limited access to manage specific templates. It also notes that the sub-account gets its own login credentials, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sub_accounts, update_sub_account, and delete_sub_account.

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 instruction 'Use this to grant team members limited access to manage specific templates' gives explicit context for when to employ this tool. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling tools (list/update/delete) make the intended use case clear in context.

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