update_deposit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only DRAFT deposits are mutable, that posted deposits are immutable, and that user confirmation is required before execution. However, it does not explain whether the lines array replaces all existing lines, how omitted fields are treated, or whether special permissions are needed — significant gaps for a multi-line mutation.

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-loading purpose, the key constraint, and the required workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler text.

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?

Given the 10-parameter, nested mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical business rule (DRAFT only) and the mandatory confirmation step. The schema's 100% coverage handles parameter details, though line-replacement semantics remain unstated — a minor gap relative to the schema's richness.

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%, so all ten parameters including nested line fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline when the schema is complete.

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 verb and resource ('Update a DRAFT bank deposit') and adds the critical scope qualifier 'DRAFT' that implicitly separates it from siblings like post_deposit, void_deposit, and delete_deposit. An agent can identify what the tool does and when it is valid without opening the 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?

It explicitly states the exclusion ('Posted deposits cannot be edited') and prescribes a required workflow ('Preview and confirm with the user first'). It does not name an alternative tool for posted deposits, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives map.

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