Create Deposit

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

Annotations provide minimal safety cues. The description adds an example and bilingual text, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on client balance), permissions required, or any post-creation behavior. Some behavioral context is added, but gaps remain.

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 concise: two purposeful sentences (English and Spanish) plus a clear example. It is front-loaded with the primary action and use cases, earning its length.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and use cases but omits details about return values, idempotency (despite false annotation), or error conditions. It is minimally complete but lacks depth.

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 coverage is 100% with bilingual descriptions. The description only highlights clientId, amount, currency, description via example, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents all parameters well.

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 ('Record a new deposit from a client'), lists specific use cases (advance payments, retainers, security deposits), and provides an example. This distinguishes it from siblings like apply_deposit and refund_deposit.

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 indicates when to use (tracking deposits) and required fields (clientId, amount), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context is clear, but full exclusions are missing.

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