anon_post_finance

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: required permissions and the server-side conversion of yuan (max 2 decimals) into integer cents, which an agent must know at call time.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by permission, amount-handling, member constraints, endpoint, and project-scoping note. Dense but every sentence carries operational value; no filler.

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?

For a write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: permissions, amount format, member validation, and implicit project scoping. Minor gaps remain (type semantics, note field), but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 meaning for amount (units and conversion rule) and for payerUserId/splitAmong (must be project members). It is silent on the 'type' enum and 'note' field, so it only partially compensates for the low reported schema description coverage; the inline schema descriptions carry much of the load.

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+resource ('新建账目' / create a finance entry) and even names the endpoint (POST /api/projects/{id}/finance), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from finance siblings (get/patch/delete), but the create purpose is clear from the text and tool name.

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?

It gives prerequisites (finance:manage or finance:add permission, payerUserId/splitAmong must be members) and a scoping clarification (project inferred from API key, no projectId needed). However, it never says when to use this vs. alternatives like anon_patch_finance_tx_id or anon_delete_finance_tx_id, leaving usage implied.

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