Create money transactions in bulk

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), while the description adds real behavior: all-or-nothing validation ('nothing is sent if any fails'), the checks performed, and path-based error reporting (transactions.N...). It omits the dryRun flag's effect and does not address idempotency/retry behavior, which matters for a non-idempotent batch write.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the batch limit and the sibling reference; nothing is filler. Parenthetical asides ('same shape as ...', 'transactions.N...') add value rather than noise, though the middle clause is slightly compressed.

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 mutation tool with a large nested schema and no output schema, the description covers atomicity, validation and error shape well. The notable residual gaps are what a successful response contains (created IDs, externalIds?) and how dryRun changes the outcome, both of which an agent would want before calling.

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 low (33%), so the description needs to carry weight; it contributes the 50-item cap and a shape pointer to wave_create_transaction, but leaves the top-level dryRun flag completely unexplained in both schema and description. The nested transaction fields are well documented in the schema, so the gap is mostly at the top level.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create ... money transactions'), quantifies scope ('up to 50 ... in one request') and anchors to the sibling ('same shape as wave_create_transaction'), so the agent can immediately distinguish it from the single-transaction tool.

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 bulk-vs-single distinction is clear from the 50-item cap and the 'same shape as wave_create_transaction' pointer, which implies this tool is for batches. It stops short of an explicit routing rule ('use wave_create_transaction for a single entry') or any statement of when not to use bulk.

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