Apply Deposit

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint true, non-destructive. The description adds that the deposit transitions to 'applied' status, and mentions the optional invoiceId for applying to an invoice or omitting it to mark as used. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences plus an example, bilingual. Every word is useful, front-loaded with the action, and no extraneous content.

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 simple tool (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers the main use, status transition, and example. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., deposit must be unapplied) but overall is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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% with bilingual descriptions for each parameter. The description includes an example but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, score 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Apply a deposit to an invoice or mark it as used') and the resource ('deposit'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_deposit, update_deposit, refund_deposit by focusing on the specific transition to 'applied' status.

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 implicitly tells when to use: when you want to apply a deposit to an invoice or mark it as used. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like update_deposit, which could also modify status. The example helps but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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