create_transfer

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

The description adds useful constraints: 'amount must be positive' and that direction is determined by from_account/to_account. It also notes the return of both debit and credit transaction details, which is actual behavior beyond the minimal readOnlyHint:false annotation. It does not mention side effects like the creation of two ledger entries explicitly, but implies it.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter schema coverage, the description completes the picture by adding domain-specific constraints and cross-referencing the list_accounts tool. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is highly complete.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how amount positivity and directionality work, which goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions. It also reinforces the use of list_accounts for account name resolution.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Transfer money between two accounts in Actual Budget.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_transaction and update_transaction by focusing on transfers, and it explains the directional semantics of from/to accounts.

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 instructs to 'Use list_accounts to get account names,' which is a clear prerequisite. It conveys when to use the tool (for transfers) but does not explicitly exclude it for non-transfer transactions, leaving a small gap in alternative guidance.

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