zoho_match_bank_txn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write operation, error response verbatim, and gating condition. However, it lacks details on success response or side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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: two sentences that state purpose, contrast, route, and parameter format. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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 tool has three parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers the core action and required parameters but omits the optional 'body' parameter and success behavior. Given the complexity, it is fairly complete but has notable gaps.

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 context beyond the schema by explaining the array format and the write gating. It also clarifies the purpose of the parameters, adding moderate 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: matching an uncategorized bank-feed line to existing transactions, contrasting with creating a new one. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like zoho_categorize_bank_txn.

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 states when to use (match existing transactions) and provides the API route and required array format. It mentions the gating by ZOHO_ALLOW_WRITES, offering good context, but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives.

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