Import bank statement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses dedup by date + amount, that credit repayments/transfers are never created, and that new transactions land without a category. It omits permissions/auth requirements, whether re-running is idempotent beyond dedup, and failure modes for malformed PDFs.

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?

Four sentences, no filler, front-loaded with purpose then the mandatory safety workflow then the follow-up tool. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the purpose, the safety protocol, the dedup semantics, and the follow-up step are all covered. The only gap is what the dry-run plan output actually looks like, which would help the agent present it to the user.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: dryRun defaults to true and must be sequenced deliberately, and filePath is constrained to an Ozon-bank PDF. That is more than restating 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?

Names a specific verb (import) and resource (transactions from an Ozon-bank PDF statement into a ZenMoney account), plus the exact scope: missing transactions only, deduplicated by date + amount. This clearly separates it from zen_sync (general sync) and zen_find_transactions (read-only lookup).

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?

Prescribes an explicit two-step workflow: dryRun:true first, present the plan to the user, then dryRun:false only after explicit confirmation. It also routes follow-up work to zen_review_expenses for categorization, so the agent knows both when to call this and what to do next.

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