create_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is persisted to ZenMoney ('Запишет финансовую операцию'), which is useful, but says nothing about validation requirements, behavior for transfers (e.g., toAccount/receivedAmount), idempotency, or error conditions for a 10-parameter mutation tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words; the purpose is stated first and the persistence note second. Brevity is appropriate, though here it comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine from it how to populate the transfer-specific fields or what the category arrays mean.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. The only semantic contribution is the enumeration of expense/income/transfer, which merely restates the type enum, leaving parameters like category vs categories, toAccount, receivedAmount, and payee entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb (create) and resource (transaction) and enumerates the three supported kinds — expense, income, transfer. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like suggest_transactions or apply_zenmoney_diff, which may also produce transactions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suggest_transaction/apply_zenmoney_diff, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only implied usage cue comes from the word 'create' in the name.

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