Transfer Between Accounts

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

The description fully discloses key behaviors: both legs are marked exclude_from_reports, automatic reversal of outflow if inflow leg fails, and future migration for atomicity. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and addresses potential concerns about data consistency and reporting integrity.

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 with four sentences, each adding value: purpose, reporting behavior, automatic reversal, and future atomicity. It is front-loaded with the core action and keeps details relevant. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

While the description covers important behavioral aspects and error handling, it does not describe the return value or success/failure indication, which would be helpful given no output schema. However, the key contextual details (reversal, reporting) are well covered.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for each parameter. It provides behavioral context (e.g., both legs) but no parameter-specific details beyond the schema definitions.

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 records a transfer between two capital accounts, with specific verb 'record a transfer' and resource 'between two capital accounts'. It distinguishes itself by mentioning that both legs are marked exclude_from_reports=true to avoid skewing P&L, which differentiates it from generic add_transaction.

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 provides context for when to use this tool (for capital account transfers that should not affect P&L) and explains the automatic reversal behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like add_transaction for non-transfer transactions. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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