Create Deposit

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond stating it records a deposit. It does not mention side effects, auth needs, or idempotency behavior. With annotations covering the mutation type, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise with two sentences in English (plus Spanish translation). It front-loades purpose and requirements, with no filler. Every sentence is essential.

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?

Given the 10 parameters (100% schema coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description covers core purpose, required params, and example. It does not explain optional parameters, but the schema handles that. It is sufficiently complete for a creation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly highlighting required parameters (clientId and amount) and providing an example with values. This helps clarify usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Record a new deposit from a client' with specific verb and resource. It provides use cases (advance payments, retainers, security deposits) and distinguishes from sibling tools that update, delete, refund, apply, list, or get deposits.

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 explicitly requires clientId and amount, gives an example, and lists use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons with alternative tools like apply_deposit or refund_deposit. Still, the intended usage is clear.

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