run_depreciation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does name the concrete side effects: it posts all unposted depreciation schedule entries, updates accumulated depreciation, and posts to the GL. It omits reversibility (how to undo), idempotency (behavior on re-run for a closed period), and any permission/auth requirement, which are meaningful gaps for a GL-mutating operation.

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 its scope, then the side effects, then the safety instruction. 'Posts to the GL' is slightly redundant with 'posts all unposted depreciation schedule entries,' a minor bit of waste in an otherwise tight description.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, its GL effects, and a confirmation requirement. What an agent still lacks is return/result information and re-run or undo behavior, but the core decision-relevant content is present.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'fiscal year + period' phrasing simply restates the schema and adds no format, range, or validation detail beyond it.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Run depreciation') and immediately scopes it to a fiscal year + period. No sibling tool in this server performs depreciation posting, and the scope qualifiers make confusion with the search_/get_ fixed-asset and recurring-schedule tools unlikely.

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?

It gives clear operational context: this posts real GL entries and the agent should 'Confirm with the user first,' which is a meaningful gating instruction. It stops short of stating when-not to run it (e.g. an already-posted period) or naming alternatives such as posting manual journal entries, so it does not reach the explicit when/when-not bar of a 5.

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