deposit_to_pot

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It fails to state that this is a write operation, that it will alter account and pot balances, or that it may have side effects like fees or reversibility. The verb 'move' vaguely implies a state change but offers no detail on consequences, making it dangerously opaque for a financial mutation.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler or redundant phrasing; every word earns its place.

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 money-moving tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It omits critical context such as that the operation debits the source account and credits the pot, potential failure modes (e.g., insufficient funds, invalid pot), or whether confirmation is returned. An agent may not anticipate these outcomes.

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%, with all three parameters (pot_id, account_id, amount_pounds) already described. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships or format beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without adding value.

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 states a clear verb ('move') and resource ('money from an account into a Monzo pot'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also differentiates from the sibling withdraw_from_pot by specifying direction, so an agent can distinguish without opening the schema.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions for depositing, or a pointer to withdraw_from_pot for the reverse operation. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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