create_deposit

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 that the record is created as a DRAFT, that posting has a specific ledger effect (DR Bank, CR Undeposited Funds), and that posting is a separate step. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or how to undo a created draft (delete_deposit exists as a sibling).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and condensed further into the accounting effect, then the lifecycle constraint, then the interaction rule. No filler and no restatement of the name.

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 10-parameter, 4-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential lifecycle (draft vs posted), the ledger impact, and the human-confirmation requirement. The one gap is the return value: an agent needs the new deposit's id to call post_deposit, and that is not stated.

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%, with all 10 params documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the notion that the lines are undeposited payments/receipts, which the schema's 'Deposit lines' text largely already conveys; it adds no format, currency, or cash-back guidance beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (Create a bank deposit) and pins down what it is made from: undeposited payments/receipts. It also names the accounting effect and the sibling that continues the lifecycle (post_deposit), so an agent can separate it from create_payment, update_deposit, and post_deposit without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward ('use post_deposit to post it') and imposes a workflow precondition ('Preview and confirm with the user before calling'). It does not, however, say when a deposit is the right construct versus creating individual payments/receipts, so one piece of alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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