record_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the debit/credit balance requirement, but does not explain side effects, whether transactions are immutable, concurrency behavior, or error handling. The lack of annotation coverage makes this a significant gap.

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 concise, with three short sentences and a clear list of keys for entries. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the critical balancing constraint without excess wording.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the schema provides minimal type info with no descriptions. The description touches on the essenpurpose and one constraint, but does not cover side effects, validation errors, default memo behavior, or interaction with reconciliation. Given the complexity of a financial transaction tool, more guidance is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains the 'entries' structure (keys: account, amount_cents, side) and the balancing rule, but provides no details on 'transaction_id' or 'memo' beyond their names. This partial coverage leaves some parameters under-specified.

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 records a transaction in a ledger, using the verb 'Record' with the resource 'transaction'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the ledger entry creation, but does not explicitly contrast with reconciliation or balance queries.

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 implies usage for recording financial entries but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions the double-entry requirement (debits equal credits), which is a key usage constraint, but no alternatives are named.

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