create_daybook_transaction

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

Annotations indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructiveness. The description adds value by disclosing client-side balance validation, the approval flow, safe-retry deduplication, and the default draft state. This context enriches the behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core function, validation/approval, and state/dedup. It is front-loaded with the primary action, concise, and free of 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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core creation, balance validation, dedup, and state. It does not explain the response format or error handling, but the verbose parameter hints at response details. The lines schema description covers currency balancing, so overall it is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., idempotencyKey usage is mentioned but the schema already describes it). Thus, no additional semantic value is added for parameters.

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's function: 'Create a manual journal entry (daybook transaction) in Billy with balanced debit/credit lines.' It specifies the resource (daybook transaction), action (create), and key constraints (balanced lines). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_daybook_transactions and void_daybook_transaction by focusing on creation.

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 clear guidance on when to use idempotencyKey for safe retries and explains the default draft state and approval option. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for other journal entry types, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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