Create Deposit

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

With annotations providing only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description states the core action (create a deposit) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., impact on client balance, automatic processes). It does not disclose idempotency or other behaviors beyond what is obvious from the action.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, usage guidelines, and example. It is bilingual which doubles length but remains focused. Slightly verbose due to duplication, but adequate.

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 output schema exists and the input schema fully describes parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and required parameters. It does not explore optional params in depth, but for a creation tool this is sufficient. It could mention relationship to sibling tools like apply_deposit.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% with individual descriptions, the tool description adds value by emphasizing required params (clientId, amount) and providing a concrete example mapping parameters to values. The bilingual reinforcement also aids interpretation.

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 'Record a new deposit from a client.' It specifies the verb (Record) and resource (deposit), and distinguishes from siblings like apply_deposit and refund_deposit by focusing on creation. It also provides concrete use cases like advance payments and retainers.

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 explicitly mentions required parameters (clientId, amount) and gives an example, which helps usage. It outlines when the tool is useful (tracking advance payments, retainers, security deposits). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention sibling tools as alternatives.

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