post_deposit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility, the reversal mechanism (void), the confirmation requirement, and the ledger entries produced. It stops short of covering auth/permission needs or failure behavior, but the critical mutation risks are surfaced.

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, with the core action and its side effect front-loaded and the safety caveats following. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 an irreversible mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent most needs: what gets posted, that it cannot be undone except by void, and that user confirmation is required. Return-value detail is absent but not essential here.

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 the schema already documents both id and postingDate with formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Post) and resource (a DRAFT deposit) plus the exact GL effect (DR Bank, CR Undeposited Funds). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_deposit, update_deposit, and void_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?

Implies the precondition clearly: it operates on a DRAFT deposit and must be confirmed with the user first, and it names void as the only reversal path. It does not explicitly route the agent to alternatives (e.g., void_deposit vs. create_deposit), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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