Apply Deposit

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

The description adds behavioral context: the deposit status transitions to 'applied'. Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, which is consistent but not elaborated. The description does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful state-change info.

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 two sentences with an example and bilingual text. It is clear and front-loaded, though the Spanish translation adds redundancy for an English-focused agent. Still, it is efficient and not overly verbose.

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 description covers the core functionality and mentions the optional invoiceId for applying to an invoice. Given the output schema exists and parameters are simple, the description is reasonably complete, though it could mention prerequisites or error scenarios.

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 parameters are well-documented structurally. The description adds an example but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool applies a deposit to an invoice or marks it as used, and transitions status to 'applied'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like refund_deposit or update_deposit by specifying the action on invoices.

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 gives an example but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like refund_deposit or update_deposit. Usage is implied but not clarified with when-not or alternative conditions.

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