pro_deposit

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, write operation), the description adds significant behavioral detail: the transfer is immediate, the status enum is defined (pending/completed/failed), and the two-call preview/confirm flow is disclosed. This materially reduces surprise for a mutating tool and does not contradict 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?

Each of the four sentences carries distinct, necessary information: purpose, prerequisite, verification, status enum, and confirmation protocol. The main action is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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?

For a deposit tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the prerequisite check, immediate execution, verification step, the two-call confirmation pattern, and the status enum for interpreting results. An agent has what it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly in the right workflow.

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% and each parameter already has a helpful description, setting the baseline at 3. The description goes further by explaining that the first call without confirm=true returns a preview and that confirm must only be set after user agreement, which adds operational meaning beyond the schema's confirm parameter description.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Deposit funds from Simple Wallet to Pro Trading account.' This precisely identifies the action and the from→to path, distinguishing it from sibling tools like earn_deposit and pro_withdraw without needing to read their schemas.

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?

It provides clear workflow context by telling the agent to first check wallet_get_pockets for available funds and to verify with pro_get_balance afterward. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as earn_deposit, so it stops short of a full when/when-not explanation.

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