apply_income_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes this is a mutation operation (create/update) with a user confirmation step, but lacks details on idempotency, reversibility, required permissions, or side effects. The information is insufficient for an agent to gauge the tool's impact.

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 a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks structure such as breaking down key aspects (e.g., behavior, parameters, usage). The sentence is not wasteful but could be more informative without adding length.

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 the tool has two parameters (one with no internal schema), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to provide complete context. It omits critical details like what the 'source' object should contain, how the 'db_path' affects behavior, and what the outcome looks like. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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%, meaning the parameters 'source' (an object with additionalProperties) and 'db_path' (nullable string) are not documented in the schema. The description does not explain these parameters at all, leaving the agent with no understanding of their meaning or format.

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 creates or updates an income source and schedule version after user confirmation. It uses specific verbs ('create', 'update') and a specific resource ('income source', 'schedule version'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_income_sources' or 'generate_income_instances'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'after user confirmation' implies a prerequisite, but no when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. This leaves an agent without clear decision criteria.

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