Apply Deposit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the specific status change to 'applied', which is useful but does not address authorization needs, failure cases, or other side effects beyond the status transition.

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 efficient with two sentences, an example, and a Spanish translation. The translation adds slight redundancy but overall structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 purpose and a behavior note but omits prerequisites (e.g., deposit must exist and be applicable), error conditions, or what the output contains. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value details, but more context on business logic would help.

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?

Parameters have full schema coverage with descriptions. The tool description adds an example clarifying usage and implies that invoiceId is optional (since marking as used alone is mentioned). This adds practical meaning beyond 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 clearly states the action ('apply') and resource ('deposit'), and distinguishes two modes: applying to an invoice or marking as used alone. It includes a concrete example and contrasts with siblings like create_deposit, get_deposit, etc.

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 usage when you need to apply a deposit to an invoice or mark it as used, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like update_deposit or create_deposit. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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