settle_up

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a computed minimal settlement list rather than mutating group data, and it specifies the output fields. It does not discuss side effects or edge cases, but the 'list of transfers' phrasing strongly signals a read/compute-like 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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the key output concept and includes the essential field names. Every word earns its place with no redundant detail.

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?

The tool has one simple parameter and an output schema, and the description names the output structure and its purpose. Edge cases like an empty group or invalid group_id are not mentioned, but the definition is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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 provides only the type and title for group_id, and the description has 0% schema coverage. The phrase 'every debt in the group' implicitly ties group_id to the target group, adding some meaning, but it never explicitly describes the parameter. For a single obvious integer parameter, this is adequate but not outstanding.

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 clearly states what the tool produces: a minimal list of transfers with fields from, to, and amount_cents that settles every debt in the group. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_balances, which reports balances, and add_expense/delete_expense, which modify expenses.

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 description implies the tool should be used when the caller wants a settlement plan for a group's debts, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_balances or other siblings. The usage context is clear but relies on inference rather than explicit guidance.

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