Create money transaction

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that Wave does not document de-duplication by externalId, advising a check of the web app after a timeout rather than blind retry, and telling the agent to retain the returned id for later reads. These are exactly the operational risks (duplicate writes, lost ids) an agent needs before calling a non-idempotent create.

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?

Every sentence carries weight: the two patterns, the balancing rule, the id-retention note, the dryRun escape hatch, and the dedupe caution. It is front-loaded with the modeling rules and telegraphic without becoming ambiguous.

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 an 8-parameter nested create with no output schema, the description covers the hard parts: double-entry construction, balancing, validation, and duplicate risk. Minor gaps remain around tax line handling and the customerId/notes fields, which the schema alone must carry.

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 75%, and the description still adds real meaning: it explains the anchor/line relationship, maps direction DEPOSIT/WITHDRAWAL to money in/out through concrete examples, and shows which account types go in the anchor vs. the lines. It leaves taxes, customerId, and the businessId default to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Record a bank/credit-card transaction and categorize it,' and anchors it to the familiar Wave Transactions page. It differentiates from the read path (wave_get_transaction / wave_list_transactions) but never mentions the bulk sibling wave_create_transactions, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate single vs. batch creation from this text alone.

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?

Provides two concrete worked patterns (expense paid by card vs. sale deposited to bank), the rule that line items must total the anchor, and an explicit validate-without-writing path via dryRun=true. It does not state when to prefer this over wave_create_transactions or wave_import_ledger, which is the main remaining routing gap.

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