Add Credit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Add credit/income entry.' It does not disclose ledger side effects, balance updates, return values, reversibility, or validation behavior. 'Add' reveals mutation, but for a financial tool this is a significant behavioral gap.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words and immediately states the operation and resource. It is appropriately short for what it tries to say, though the omitted context is penalized under other dimensions.

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?

With a fully documented optional-parameter schema, the description is minimally usable: an agent knows which business action to perform and can infer argument intent from the schema. It does not describe the resulting state, return behavior, or how the entry interacts with get_balance and list_credits, which is an obvious gap for a financial mutation tool.

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?

The input schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions and defaults, so schema coverage is effectively complete. The tool description only reinforces that this is a credit/income entry and adds no parameter-specific nuance on top of 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?

The description states the action ('Add') and the resource ('credit/income entry'), which is enough to distinguish it from add_expense and list_credits in the sibling list. It does not explicitly frame the sibling contrast, but the resource label is unambiguous.

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 verb and resource imply that this is for adding income/credit entries rather than expenses, summaries, or reads. However, there is no explicit 'use when' guidance or mention of alternatives such as list_credits and get_balance, leaving selection to inference.

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