create_transaction

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the API's 400 validation for missing fields, but omits details on permissions, idempotency, side effects, or success/error responses.

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 very concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and provide essential parameter guidance without extraneous text.

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 tool simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the basics but lacks behavioral context and return value information, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The description adds value beyond the empty schema description by stating that fields_json is a JSON object and that it requires a bankId (with a reference to list_transactions). However, it does not enumerate other required or optional fields.

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 it creates a bank transaction (deposit/withdrawal) via POST /v1/transactions, which distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_invoice or create_matter. However, it could be more explicit about the specific operation type.

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 implicit guidance by mentioning the need for a bankId and referencing list_transactions for enumeration, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions compared to alternatives.

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