add_transaction

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry some behavioral weight. It discloses the return value ('Returns the created transaction id and details') and mentions format constraints. It does not discuss permissions or undoability, but for a simple create operation this is adequate.

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 five short, purposeful sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then provides essential format conventions, helper tool references, and return behavior. No extraneous words or repetition.

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's 7 parameters, full schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers the key contextual needs: date format, amount sign, how to obtain enum-like values, and return content. It could mention cleared or transfers, but those are optional and not essential for basic use.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with all seven parameters described. The description largely repeats schema information (date format, amount sign, use list_* calls) without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new transaction in Actual Budget' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_transaction, delete_transaction, and create_transfer by focusing on creation of a standard 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 explicit guidance on using list_accounts, list_payees, and list_categories to obtain valid names, and explains the amount sign convention. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool, such as using create_transfer for transfers, so the alternative guidance is incomplete.

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